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

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 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

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

9) of the 1922 Act, which was construed in Deviprasad's case (supra) is that the words 'regular assessment' have now been specifically defined by the legislature. The 1922 Act did not define the words 'regular assessment'. In view of the definition of these words in s. 2(40) of the Act, under the accepted canons of construction, wherever those

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

9) of the 1922 Act, which was construed in Deviprasad's case (supra) is that the words 'regular assessment' have now been specifically defined by the legislature. The 1922 Act did not define the words 'regular assessment'. In view of the definition of these words in s. 2(40) of the Act, under the accepted canons of construction, wherever those

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

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 18, & 19: All these grounds are on one issue and summarized as one: “That CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs.4,33,54,756/- on account of premium received by appellant authority against plots, flats & shops and thereafter enhancing this addition

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 18, & 19: All these grounds are on one issue and summarized as one: “That CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs.4,33,54,756/- on account of premium received by appellant authority against plots, flats & shops and thereafter enhancing this addition

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

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

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

9 A.Y.2015-16 not fulfilled recourse cannot be had to section 263 of the Act, is settled law, laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC). Further, for coming to the conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue

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