BRODAWAYS OVERSEAS LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD., JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the objection of the assessee company that Ld. DCIT had no jurisdiction to make reference to Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

9 the External Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, which could affect the determination of the arm's length price and, consequently, the transfer pricing adjustments. 5.2 The assessee has established two captive electricity and steam generation units (referred to as Co-generation Unit 1 and Co- generation Unit 2) located in Muktsar, Punjab, for the generation of electricity and steam

M/S CITI PLAZA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

price of Rs.2,30,00,000/-, has wrongly been assessed and upheld in this case. I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 3 Assessment Year: 2006-07 6. That the Id.CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring assessee's submissions that if at all the reopening was valid, the Id ITO could not have given a clean chit to other group of partners headed

M/S. SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

transfer pricing issues in the case of any person having international transactions or in case of a foreign company. It has been provided under sub-section (8) of section 144C that DRP may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order of the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. No.193/Asr/2022 36 Assessment Year: 2018-19 In a recent judgement

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE I, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, 3(1), Mumbai reported in [2010] 37 SOT 322 (MUM.), it has been held by the Mumbai ITAT that income from sale of steam was income derived from industrial undertaking, it was eligible for deduction under section 80-IA. The relevant head notes are reproduced as under: - Section 80-IA of the Income

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

transferred. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Suryanaraina 88 ITR 321 held that the full value of consideration in the said section meant only the actual value received by the assessee. However the market value may also be taken in place of full value of consideration only in the event of the consideration

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

transferred. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Suryanaraina 88 ITR 321 held that the full value of consideration in the said section meant only the actual value received by the assessee. However the market value may also be taken in place of full value of consideration only in the event of the consideration

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

transferred. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Suryanaraina 88 ITR 321 held that the full value of consideration in the said section meant only the actual value received by the assessee. However the market value may also be taken in place of full value of consideration only in the event of the consideration

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

9 to 10 is on reasons of deep scrutiny and transfer of ancestral property whereas in the present case facts are that the undisclosed investment in land purchase on cash and cheque deposit in the bank account by the appellant company has been based on specific information for reason to belief by the AO under section

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

v. Union of India\nSection 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of\nrevenue (General Principles) - An order under section 263 was assailed on ground that\ncondition precedent of initiating a proceeding under section 263 was absent and, therefore,\nimpugned order was an order without jurisdiction Whether two conditions of order\nbeing erroneous

SHRI SUBASH CHANDER GUPTA & SONS,JAMMU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX , SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary the grounds of appeal here in above at or before hearing of appeal.” 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the language of the section 263 it is apparently clear that opportunity of being heard has to be provided

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

v) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 4. Brief facts emerging from record are that the assessee is an agriculturist and is about 92 years old, and his source of income is only from agricultural activities carried out on ancestral agricultural land. During

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

9 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO court where adjudicating the matter on Section 69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

9 ITA No. 26/Asr/2024 Rama Mittal v. ITO court where adjudicating the matter on Section 69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were