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

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

exempt from tax u/s\n10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nModus Operandi\n2.11 The modus operandi adopted by the “operators” was to make the\nbeneficiaries buy some shares of a pre determined penny stock\ncompanies controlled by them. These shares were transferred to the\nbeneficiaries at a very nominal price

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)

exempt income, the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- was suo-moto made under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The total disallowance thus made suo-moto amended to Rs. 11,79,624/-. The AO made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 11,63,32,789/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting

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)

exempt income, the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- was suo-moto made under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The total disallowance thus made suo-moto amended to Rs. 11,79,624/-. The AO made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 11,63,32,789/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting

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)

exempt income, the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- was suo-moto made under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The total disallowance thus made suo-moto amended to Rs. 11,79,624/-. The AO made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 11,63,32,789/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting

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)

exempt income, the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- was suo-moto made under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The total disallowance thus made suo-moto amended to Rs. 11,79,624/-. The AO made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 11,63,32,789/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting

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)

exempt income, the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- was suo-moto made under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The total disallowance thus made suo-moto amended to Rs. 11,79,624/-. The AO made disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs. 11,63,32,789/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. JAMES HOTELS LTD, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

Transfer Pricing Officer and thereafter the Ld. AO changed the nature of transaction from share application money and treated it as loan on which notional interest was computed and the Tribunal held that AO has no power to reclassify the transaction from the share application money to loan. 8.3 It was further submitted that while levying the penalty, Additional

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

exemption of Rs.l8,31,36,042 under section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains earned on transfer of shares held in M/s Maa Jagdambe Trade Link Limited, as under: Name of No. of Purchase of shares Sale of shares Long term Share shares Date of Cost Price

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

exemption of Rs.l8,31,36,042 under section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains earned on transfer of shares held in M/s Maa Jagdambe Trade Link Limited, as under: Name of No. of Purchase of shares Sale of shares Long term Share shares Date of Cost Price

DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court? Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Is Right Holding Such Consequential Order As Void An Initio Ignoring The Facts That Order Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Gurugram U/S 263 Has Not Attained Its Finality? Iii) Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Holding That Consequential Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act As Void As Initio Without Giving Any Liberty To The Revenue To Revive The Proceedings Consequent To Any Directions Or Order

exemption. Similarly, in another judgment in the case of CIT-3 Vs. Sanvijay Rolling & 5.4 Engineering Ltd., reported in (2022) 137 Taxmann.com 123 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court went on to hold that where the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IA & 80IB of the Act and since there was a merger

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a predetermined Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a predetermined Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some shares of a predetermined Penny stock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price

SMT. RITU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

exempt\nfrom tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to\nmake the beneficiary buy some shares of a predetermined Penny\nstock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred to\nthe beneficiary at a very nominal price

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

exempt\nfrom tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to\nmake the beneficiary buy some shares of a predetermined Penny\nstock company controlled by them. These shares are transferred\nto the beneficiary at a very nominal price