SARASWATI AGRO CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, the transfer pricing adjustment so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) amounting to Rs 89,22,420/- is hereby set-aside and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowed and added to income. In fact, issuance/investment of shares is undoubtedly on capital account and thus cannot be construed as income/expense and therefore not subject to transfer pricing

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 6.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S ANAND ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SANGURUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 6.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S HIND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS CONTRCTORS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 6.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 6.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 6.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 6.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S AMBEY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 6.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S HIMALYAN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 6.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S MAA BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 7.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 7.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S OMKAR ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 7.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S OM CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowing salary and interest to partners and had also enhanced the percentage of earnings by taking the same as 8% being commission earned by the assessee firm. 7.3 Before we proceed to examine the issue before us at length, it will the worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of section 263 of the Act as under:- “263. (1) The [Principal Chief

M/S PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, NEAC DELHI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.127/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.128/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Addl. Cit Protection Ltd. Nfac बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road Delhi Vs. Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Distt. Sas Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Khanna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 & 2009-10 Is In Second Round Of Litigation Since The Appeal Was Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.60/Chd/2013 & Ita No.100/Chd/2013 Common Order Dated 23-07-2018 For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10 Wherein Few Of The Issues Were Restored Back To Lower

Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.34.60 Lacs; (iv) Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment on reimbursement of expenses; (v) Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Corporate

M/S PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, NEAC DELHI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.127/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.128/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Addl. Cit Protection Ltd. Nfac बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road Delhi Vs. Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Distt. Sas Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Khanna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 & 2009-10 Is In Second Round Of Litigation Since The Appeal Was Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.60/Chd/2013 & Ita No.100/Chd/2013 Common Order Dated 23-07-2018 For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10 Wherein Few Of The Issues Were Restored Back To Lower

Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.34.60 Lacs; (iv) Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment on reimbursement of expenses; (v) Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Corporate

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

disallowed the said loss only on the basis that the agreement to sell was unregistered. It was contended that the sale consideration had been transferred through banking channels and then the said plot had been transferred by the builder to the purchaser with whom the agreement to sell had been executed. Further, it was submitted that the transfer/sale

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP PROTECTION LTD.,MOHALI vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 316/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Punjab Chemicals & Crop Protection Ltd. Addl. Cit बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road, Range-1 Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Chandigarh Vs. District Sas Nagar Mohali-140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anil Khanna (Ca). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.0.23 Lacs; (iii) Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment on Corporate Guarantee; (iv) Set-off of brought forward

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing adjustment involved. 3 2008-09 2,18,67,637 New Service Foreign travelling The Hon'ble Tribunal agreement dated expenditure disallowed