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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section 92CA(2B) that assuming

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section 92CA(2B) that assuming

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section 92CA(2B) that assuming

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section 92CA(2B) that assuming

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section 92CA(2B) that assuming

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section 92CA(2B) that assuming

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

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

2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that in any case, reference made to Transfer Pricing Officer without demonstrating as to why it was necessary and expedient to do so is bad in law. 3. That Ld. ClT(A) is not justified in rejecting the objection of the assessee company citing provisions of section 92CA(2B) that assuming

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

9. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AD erred in making addition of Rs. 8,85,40,036/- vide order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) in consequence of directions of DRP u/s144C(5) of the Income

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

transfer of long term securities (Penny stock shares) - Assessment year 2014-\n15 - Whether before exercise of power under section 263 it is Principal Commissioner\nwho has to apply its mind to issue and thereafter record reasons as to how twin conditions\nof order of Assessing Officer being erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue are\nsatisfied and then issue

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

2. That while taking the above view, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in totally ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath vs CIT (1979) 120 ITR 14 (SC), heavily relied upon by assessee, holding that 'when it is left to the option or discretion of the ITO, whether or not to take an action

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

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

price index on purchase value, indexed cost comes to Rs 8.800/- and Rs.792,000/- respectively. But the appellant credited his account with amount of Rs.2.55,00,000/- instead of Rs 8,00,800/- without paying any tax Therefore the appellant was given final opportunity to explain as to why the amount of Rs 2.45.99,200/- (Rs 2

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

price of the new land was more than the sale proceeds of the old land (original asset) there cannot be any capital gains on such sale as per provision of section 54B(1)(ii). He further relied on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh in ITA 616/2007 order dated 01/04/2008 reported

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

transferred by the assessee to the M/s Devinder Kumar Deepesh Kumar ,as an accommodation entry for recording of bogus purchase, because 4 I.T.A. No. 236/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 as per the AO the physical movement of goods could not be proved, in absence of any Bilty, weighment slip of goods, octroi receipts, and in absence of any proof

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