SARASWATI AGRO CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, the transfer pricing adjustment so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) amounting to Rs 89,22,420/- is hereby set-aside and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. Further during the course of assessment proceeding, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

142(1) dated 11/01/2021 hadsought valuation report and assessee has given reply on 22/12/2020 & 26/01/2021 in response to his question raised and submitted valuation report from Income Tax approved registered valuer. The AO has made due enquiry and accepted the FMV as on 1-4-2001 on the basis documents / valuation report therefore the order passed under section

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

transfer of the capital asset. 18. The Hon’ble High Court has held that the full value of consideration is neither the market value nor necessarily the price stated in the document for sale but the price actually arrived at between the parties to the transactions. It was further held that where it is found by the Assessing officer that

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire were issued on 20.11.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee filed written submissions alongwith replies to various queries as per questionnaire which were placed on record. The case was discussed with him from time to time. 8. After discussion and verification of details/ information and bank statement

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.

142(1) were issued calling for the necessary information and documentation. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that there are huge cash deposits as reflected in the bank statement furnished by the assessee and the assessee was asked to explain the nature and source of said cash deposit. In response, the assessee submitted that these cash

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds o f agriculture land o f her husband. Because the assessee's husband has no bank account and the amount is huge and not possible to carry to other place. Her husband deposited entire amount of sale o f agriculture land in the bank

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds o f agriculture land o f her husband. Because the assessee's husband has no bank account and the amount is huge and not possible to carry to other place. Her husband deposited entire amount of sale o f agriculture land in the bank

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

142(1) the assessee repeatedly said that the amount in the bank was the sale proceeds o f agriculture land o f her husband. Because the assessee's husband has no bank account and the amount is huge and not possible to carry to other place. Her husband deposited entire amount of sale o f agriculture land in the bank

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

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

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)

142(1), along with questionnaires, were issued by the AO seeking specific details regarding the said transaction. 4. The AO noted that despite repeated opportunities, no credible explanation or evidence for cost of acquisition of the property was furnished. Therefore, vide show cause notice dated 17.02.2023, the AO proposed to treat the full amount of Rs.1

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

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. It was explained that the original award was passed on 31.03.2008, subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge on 24.12.2013 and further