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

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

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

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

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

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, 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. DCIT, 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 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.,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

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

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

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 MAHAVIR TECHNO LTD.,,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CRICLE, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

234B of the I.T. Act. From the aforesaid grounds it is gathered that the only grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs. 1,53,73,790/- made by the A.O. by making the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as Act). 3. Facts

SHRI RAJDEEP SINGH CHIMNI,CHANDIGARH vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

234B Rs. 2,48,601/- Intt. u/s 234C Rs. 52,898/- Total Tax Payable Rs. 43,56,745/- Less: prepaid taxes Rs. 40,15,527/- Add: Refund already issued Rs. 7,910/- Balance payable Rs. 3,49,128/- Demand of Rs. 8,45,501/- (i.e. 11,94,629 - 3,49,128) taken to remission account.” 6 It was further submitted

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

234B of the Act and u/s 234C of the Act is not leviable on the facts of the case. 14 In view of the aforesaid submission, it is therefore prayed that it be held that addition made by the learned Assessing Officer alongwith interest levied may kindly be deleted and appeal of the appellant company may be allowed. Should your

H.M. STEELS LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ACIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

234B and 234-C, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has been wrongly and illegally charged and levied. 8. That the appellant craves permission to elucidate, amend, alter, add or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the addition may kindly be deleted

ACIT, SANGRUR vs. M/S H.M.STEELS LTD, DIRBA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

234B and 234-C, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has been wrongly and illegally charged and levied. 8. That the appellant craves permission to elucidate, amend, alter, add or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the addition may kindly be deleted

M/S H.M. STEEL LTD.,SANGRUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SANGRUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं Ita No. 366/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

234B and 234-C, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has been wrongly and illegally charged and levied. 8. That the appellant craves permission to elucidate, amend, alter, add or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the addition may kindly be deleted