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

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

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

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, 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

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

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

transferred by the entry operators to such accommodation entry providers through the angadias (cash carriers). Accordingly, the operators then routed the unaccounted cash through the bank accounts of various paper companies and floated dummy / bogus buyers for buying the scrips at the artificially jacked-up share price of such listed securities from the beneficiaries. At that time, the beneficiary

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

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

transferred by the entry operators to such accommodation entry providers through the angadias (cash carriers). Accordingly, the operators then routed the unaccounted cash through the bank accounts of various paper companies and floated dummy / bogus buyers for buying the scrips at the artificially jacked-up share price of such listed securities from the beneficiaries. At that time, the beneficiary

GURMUKH SINGH BHATTI,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under Section 271 AAC of the Act. 3) That the appellant craves the right to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed off. 2. The appeal is against the only one relevant issue raised through aforesaid grounds of appeal, made by the Assessing Officer and sustained

NEERU ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. CIRCLE-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F. 7. The assessee filed objections against the draft order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C(2) on 31.03.2023, along with Form No. 35A and various annexures, challenging the year of taxability, the incorrect application of section 50C, and the denial of deduction for the cost of acquisition

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed