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 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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Corporate Guarantee charges. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, these grounds are adjudicated as under. 2. Disallowance of Commission Paid to working directors 2.1 The Tribunal restored this issue back to Ld. AO to verify that the expenditure was an ascertained liability. The Ld. AO rendered a finding that the actual amount

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Corporate Guarantee charges. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, these grounds are adjudicated as under. 2. Disallowance of Commission Paid to working directors 2.1 The Tribunal restored this issue back to Ld. AO to verify that the expenditure was an ascertained liability. The Ld. AO rendered a finding that the actual amount

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 remanded the issue May 12, 2007 alleging that the back to the DRP to with Fidelity Respondent is pass a speaking Information not required to incur order after Services Inc., foreign travelling considering

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Pricing / MAT. 3. The Ld. AR had submitted that pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Ld. PCIT the assessee had submitted the reply, which was reproduced at page 8 of the impugned order as under: 1) Issue No.2.1 at para 2 of the show cause notice: 2.1 The Assessing Officer(AO) wrongly allowed the Development Expense provision

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

deduction under section 80IC. Ordered accordingly. Ground No. 5 is accepted. 17. Ground No. 6 states that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating line / bay charges amounting to Rs. 82,50,000/- as capital expenditure instead of Revenue expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A), however, allowed depreciation on the same

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

deduction under section 80IC. Ordered accordingly. Ground No. 5 is accepted. 17. Ground No. 6 states that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating line / bay charges amounting to Rs. 82,50,000/- as capital expenditure instead of Revenue expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A), however, allowed depreciation on the same

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

deduction under section 80IC. Ordered accordingly. Ground No. 5 is accepted. 17. Ground No. 6 states that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating line / bay charges amounting to Rs. 82,50,000/- as capital expenditure instead of Revenue expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A), however, allowed depreciation on the same

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

deduction under section 80IC. Ordered accordingly. Ground No. 5 is accepted. 17. Ground No. 6 states that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating line / bay charges amounting to Rs. 82,50,000/- as capital expenditure instead of Revenue expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A), however, allowed depreciation on the same

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

deduction under section 80IC. Ordered accordingly. Ground No. 5 is accepted. 17. Ground No. 6 states that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating line / bay charges amounting to Rs. 82,50,000/- as capital expenditure instead of Revenue expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A), however, allowed depreciation on the same

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

deductions, namely:.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so\nfar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion\nof the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or\nPrincipal Commissioner or Commissioner,-\n\n(a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which\nshould have been

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assesse an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

deductions, namely:-\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

RANJEET SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD 2, AMBALA

deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation to the tune