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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to this notice, the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 28,710/- from business u/s 44AD

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

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to this notice, the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 28,710/- from business u/s 44AD

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

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to this notice, the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 28,710/- from business u/s 44AD

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

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act'] but the assessee firm did not furnish the required details. Therefore, the AO proceeded to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to this notice, the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 28,710/- from business u/s 44AD

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

section 50C of the Act,as against 1.14 crs shown by the assessee, on the basis of information called for u/s 133(6) of the Act from the Estate Officer GMADA, who submitted as under: Size of Plot Transfer fees charged Total price

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,NABHA vs. DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks