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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 144C uses two\nindependent limbs – one for transfer-pricing cases and one for any non-resident\nassessee. It was emphasized that the AO having proposed variations prejudicial\nto the assessee, draft assessment order u/s 144C(1

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 144C uses two\nindependent limbs – one for transfer-pricing cases and one for any non-resident\nassessee. It was emphasized that the AO having proposed variations prejudicial\nto the assessee, draft assessment order u/s 144C(1

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(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has sustained the said Transfer Pricing

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

144C read with section 1448 of the Act in pursuance of directions dated 26 September 2024 issued by Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Ld. DRP have: 1

M/S NECTAR LIFESCIENCE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144C(5) of the Act vide order dt. 25/07/2019. . 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. GENERAL GROUNDS 1.1 The assessment order passed by the Ld. AO in pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is a vitiated order as the Hon'ble DRP erred both on facts

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 3. In this regard, briefly the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that out of total travelling expenses debited in the P&L Account, an amount of Rs. 9,21,58,400/- has been claimed by the assesssee in respect of foreign travelling expenses. Thereafter

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD,,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-5(1),(NEAC), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. Panel’) under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144C(13), 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

144C(5) & 254/153(2A) of the Act, passed in accordance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP in short), in second round, on the directions of the ITAT. It was common ground that the issues involved in both the appeals were identical, they were therefore heard together and are being disposed off by a common consolidated order

SH. RAJINDER SINGH BEDI,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

144C of the Income Tax Act The Assessing Officer is directed to complete the assessment as per the above directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Assessing Officer shall place a copy of these directions as annexure to the final order, to be read as a part of the order. While passing the final order, the Assessing Officer shall incorporate

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)

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. 8. The assessee contended that the transfer of the capital asset was completed in A.Y. 2010-11 when possession was handed over and full consideration was received

AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH

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

transfer pricing amounting to Rs. 8,21,51,007/-, addition on account of ESI/EPF amounting to Rs. 18,81,760/- and disallowance under section 14A amounting to Rs. 8,35,083/-. 7.1 The assessee company thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by filing an appeal on 23/01/2019. In the meantime, before the appeal could

M/S AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

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

transfer pricing amounting to Rs. 8,21,51,007/-, addition on account of ESI/EPF amounting to Rs. 18,81,760/- and disallowance under section 14A amounting to Rs. 8,35,083/-. 7.1 The assessee company thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by filing an appeal on 23/01/2019. In the meantime, before the appeal could

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

144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated that the impugned appeals had earlier been listed for hearing alongwith the appeals for assessment year 2005-06 and assessment year 2006-07, in ITA No.2453/Del/2016 and ITA No.532/Chd/2014 ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys

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

144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated that the impugned appeals had earlier been listed for hearing alongwith the appeals for assessment year 2005-06 and assessment year 2006-07, in ITA No.2453/Del/2016 and ITA No.532/Chd/2014 ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys

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

144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated that the impugned appeals had earlier been listed for hearing alongwith the appeals for assessment year 2005-06 and assessment year 2006-07, in ITA No.2453/Del/2016 and ITA No.532/Chd/2014 ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys

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

144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated that the impugned appeals had earlier been listed for hearing alongwith the appeals for assessment year 2005-06 and assessment year 2006-07, in ITA No.2453/Del/2016 and ITA No.532/Chd/2014 ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys

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

144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated that the impugned appeals had earlier been listed for hearing alongwith the appeals for assessment year 2005-06 and assessment year 2006-07, in ITA No.2453/Del/2016 and ITA No.532/Chd/2014 ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys

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

144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated that the impugned appeals had earlier been listed for hearing alongwith the appeals for assessment year 2005-06 and assessment year 2006-07, in ITA No.2453/Del/2016 and ITA No.532/Chd/2014 ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys