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 adjustment been proposed by him. 10. In light of the aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the penalty

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer made a variation to the Arm's Length Price and valued the transaction at Rs. 517.82 per share. In other words, he recommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the Petitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section 144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

CENTRIENT PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1201/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

Transfer Pricing Grounds: Legal grounds Ground 1: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passes by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation in terms of section 153(1)/(4) and therefore, is liable to be quashed. Ground 2: Based on the facts and circumstances of the present case

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer made a variation to the Arm's Length\nPrice and valued the transaction at Rs.517.82 per share. In other words, he\nrecommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the\nPetitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section\n144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer made a variation to the Arm's Length\nPrice and valued the transaction at Rs.517.82 per share. In other words, he\nrecommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the\nPetitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section\n144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer made a variation to the Arm's Length\nPrice and valued the transaction at Rs.517.82 per share. In other words, he\nrecommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the\nPetitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section\n144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

M/S RAKHRA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

transfer pricing, same tantamount to concealment of income. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per the provisions of Explanation-7 to Section 271 of the Act, if it is found that the claim was made by the assessee in good faith with due diligence, then the provisions of Section

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

penalty proceedings at this stage is premature, hence, ground no.11 of appeal is dismissed. 23. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid. ITA No. 1592/Chd/2018 for AY 2014-15. 24. The ld. AR of assessee submitted at the outset that the grounds assailing Transfer Pricing

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

penalty proceedings at this stage is premature, hence, ground no.11 of appeal is dismissed. 23. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in the terms aforesaid. ITA No. 1592/Chd/2018 for AY 2014-15. 24. The ld. AR of assessee submitted at the outset that the grounds assailing Transfer Pricing

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

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

penalty order. The AO has no powers to reclassify the transaction from share application money to loans and advances. This proposition has been laid down by ITAT in the case of Dhruv Chaudhary v/s ADIT 2019-TII-261-ITAT-Delhi- TP. In the aforesaid case also, the Transfer Pricing

M/S CENTRIENT PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHAR vs. ADDITINAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSTT. C.IT,ITO,NEAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.8,05,24,450/- in respect of corporate services fees. The TPO applied CUP as the most appropriate method and determined ALP of the transaction as Nil. The TPO has further observed that no independent party would have made a similar payment in uncontrolled circumstances. We find that this issue is perennial in nature

M/S SHREE GANESH JEWELLERS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE V(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. 2.3 Further reliance was placed on the Coordinate Bench decision in case of VDB Infra

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being initiated. Subject to above income of the assessee is computed as under:- Last Assessed Income as per order 4,76,40,025/- dated 10.03.2016 Addition as discussed above 4,11,52,839/- Total Income 8,87,92,864/- Income Rounded off u/s 288A

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

transferred to the\nbeneficiaries at a very nominal price mostly off line through preferential\nallotment or offline sale to save STT.\n2.12 The beneficiary individuals were made to hold the shares for a\nminimum period of one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is\nexempt under the provisions of Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961.\n2.13

M/S CHANDIGARH BOTTLING CO.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar & Assessment Year: 2006-07

penalty proceedings pertaining to 2006-07 assessment year. Since both were argued together, they are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In ITA 605/CHD/2011, the assessee has raised the following ground : “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT is not justified in upholding the decision

SH. PAWAN GARG,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-2, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1475/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

transfer in the computation of income and the resultant figure was shown as a capital loss. It is also a fact on record that the assessee had accepted the same at the time of assessment proceedings. 8.1 Therefore, on the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a case where the particulars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. SUNIL KUMAR SOOD, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

penalty u/s 270A has been initiated. Decision: (a) Only issue is whether there is some capital gain or not. If yes, then what would be the year of taxability. The AO has held that the possession was handed over in the FY 2006-07 to M/s Homeland Buidwell Pvt Ltd and therefore, capital gain would have arisen in that year

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) in respect of income enhanced by him in the appellate order. 9. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee firm has also moved