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 92CA(1) to Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the Arm's Length Prices in respect of the above specified domestic transactions of Rs. 8,92,24

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA. For this class of assessees, it prescribes a collegium of three commissioners, once objections are preferred. The Dispute Resolution Panel's powers are coterminous with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), including the power to confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed and to consider the issues not agitated

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of\nincome or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention\ntherein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed\nincome is chargeable under section

SH. SURESH PAL,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNA NAGAR

transfer\nof agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head\n\"Capital gains\". The argument raised is not well founded.\n11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause\n46. 1. The said clause talks about undue hardship being caused as arrears of interest\nbeing taxable

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of\nincome or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention\ntherein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed\nincome is chargeable under section

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

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

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

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

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

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

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

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

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

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

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

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of income or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention therein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed income is chargeable under section

SH. PARGAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, KAITHAL

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of\nincome or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention\ntherein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed\nincome is chargeable under section

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of\nincome or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention\ntherein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed\nincome is chargeable under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

section\n28 or section 41 or section 59;\n53[(va) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiia) of section 28 ;]\n54[(vb) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiib) of section 28 ;]\n55[(vc) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiic) of section 28 ;]\n56[(vd)] the value of any benefit or perquisite taxable

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

24) is inclusive in nature, and several categories of\nincome or deemed income chargeable to tax do not find express mention\ntherein. Further, the Ld. DR refer to Section 4 and 14 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 to support the case of the Revenue. It was submitted that the deemed\nincome is chargeable under section