M/S NECTAR LIFESCIENCE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

deduction u/s.80IA. In the transfer pricing study report, the assessee had justified the price of transfer; firstly, by taking CUP in the manner

M/S JSK INTERNATIONAL,BADDI vs. PR. CIT, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

deduction for the seventh year. 11. To deliberate on the issue the Circular No. 3/2003 dt. 20/05/2003, Instruction No. 15/2015 dt. 16/10/2015 and Instruction No. 3/2016 dt. 10/03/2016 needs to be examined in detail. Instruction No. 3 was issued on 20th May, 2003 to provide guidance to the Transfer Pricing

M/S YAMUNA POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,JAGADHRI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing charged by the assessee and in absence of reporting the same, the issue may escape the attention of the AO and given the fact that the assessee has claimed deduction

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

transferred by him. The Supreme Court also observed that in the case of a sale the full value of consideration is the full sale price actually paid. It was further of the view that the expression "full value" means the whole price without any deduction

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

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

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish a copy of the partnership deed. Under these circumstances, the AO held that the assessee

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

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

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish a copy of the partnership deed. Under these circumstances, the AO held that the assessee

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

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

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish a copy of the partnership deed. Under these circumstances, the AO held that the assessee

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

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

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish a copy of the partnership deed. Under these circumstances, the AO held that the assessee

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

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

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish a copy of the partnership deed. Under these circumstances, the AO held that the assessee

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

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

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish a copy of the partnership deed. Under these circumstances, the AO held that the assessee

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

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

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish a copy of the partnership deed. Under these circumstances, the AO held that the assessee

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

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

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish a copy of the partnership deed. Under these circumstances, the AO held that the assessee

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

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or ITA No. 481-485-Chd-2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shiv Shakti Construction & Ors, Sangrur - 21 details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish

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

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or ITA No. 481-485-Chd-2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shiv Shakti Construction & Ors, Sangrur - 21 details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish

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

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or ITA No. 481-485-Chd-2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shiv Shakti Construction & Ors, Sangrur - 21 details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish

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

deduction of salary and interest paid to partners. The assessee firm expressed its inability to provide any other documents or ITA No. 481-485-Chd-2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shiv Shakti Construction & Ors, Sangrur - 21 details except some worked contracts to justify its claim of having work as a sub-contractor. In fact, the assessee firm also did not furnish

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Deduction u/s 54F (8350000 + 751500) = Rs. 91,01,000/- Taxable LTCG = Rs. 1,54,39,951/- 4. Before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee argued that the provisions of section 50C of the Act were not applicable in the present case at all since the same applied only to transfer of land or building while the assessee had transferred neither

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

price is paid and the deed is delivered . In the percent case, from the statement of case itself as drawn up by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the parties had clearly intended that despite the execution and registration of sale deeds, transfer by way of sale will become effective only on payment of the entire consideration amount