A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

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 Officer has already examined the records and accepted the returned income. The copy of the order passed by TPO is attached as per Annexure-D and Reply submitted before TPO and A.O. along with annexures is enclosed as per Annexure-E for your honors kind perusal. "In the annexed reply submitted to TPO dated 17.11.2020- Annexure 1

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 6.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

price have already been mentioned therein and the assessment was duly framed under section 143(1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 7.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

1,75,000/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and also issued statutory notices. The assessee in reply thereto submitted that return filed in original may be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had sold the land for a consideration

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

1,75,000/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and also issued statutory notices. The assessee in reply thereto submitted that return filed in original may be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had sold the land for a consideration

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

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

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

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

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

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

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

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

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