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

price is partly paid and partly promised, the immovable property is deemed to have been transferred on execution and Registration of the Sale Deed if the possession of property has been given to the buyer. The assessee deposed before the Registering Authority that possession of land was handed over to the vendee and nothing was due for payment. Entries

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

price is partly paid and partly promised, the immovable property is deemed to have been transferred on execution and Registration of the Sale Deed if the possession of property has been given to the buyer. The assessee deposed before the Registering Authority that possession of land was handed over to the vendee and nothing was due for payment. Entries

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)

250/- on account of the alleged difference between salary receipts credited in the bank account and the income declared in the appellant's Income Tax Return (ITR), without appreciating the following: a. That a detailed reconciliation of salary, along with documentary evidence, was submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, which unequivocally proves that the actual salary earned

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

250/- on account of the alleged difference between salary receipts\ncredited in the bank account and the income declared in the appellant's\nIncome Tax Return (ITR), without appreciating the following:\na. That a detailed reconciliation of salary, along with documentary evidence,\nwas submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, which\nunequivocally proves that the actual salary earned

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

250/- on account of the alleged difference between salary receipts\ncredited in the bank account and the income declared in the appellant's\nIncome Tax Return (ITR), without appreciating the following:\n\na. That a detailed reconciliation of salary, along with documentary evidence,\nwas submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, which\nunequivocally proves that the actual salary earned

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

250/-\non account of the alleged difference between salary receipts\ncredited in the bank account and the income declared in the appellant's\nIncome Tax Return (ITR), without appreciating the following:\na. That a detailed reconciliation of salary, along with documentary evidence,\nwas submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, which\nunequivocally proves that the actual salary earned

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)

transfer pricing study report prepared for those assessment years and the orders passed in Assessee company’s case in the earlier years. In a nutshell, the Hon'ble Tribunal while passing the order for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 had considered all the relevant documents and after considering the arguments of Revenue and Assessee company had decided

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

250(6) dated 30.04.2024 is erroneous, contrary to the facts of the case and is bad in Law. 2) That the Id. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the capital loss of Rs. 25,75,000/- claimed by the Appellant and by adding this amount in the sale consideration already declared

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

price as per transfer fees 200 sq yards 1,25,000/- 50,00,000/- 300 sq yards 1,87,500/- 75,00,000/- 500 sq yards 3,12,500/- 1,25,00,000/- Total 2,50,00,000/- Further since GMADA had acquired 5000 sq. yards of land and had given in return 3 residential plots measuring

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. JAMES HOTELS LTD, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

Transfer Pricing Officer and thereafter the Ld. AO changed the nature of transaction from share application money and treated it as loan on which notional interest was computed. Hon'ble ITAT held that AO has no power to reclassify the transaction from the share application money to loan. 12.18 It was further submitted that while levying the penalty, Additional

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-

250 of the Act at first appellate stage. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. Factual Matrix Proceedings before ld. AO 2. The information was available with the Income Tax Department that the assessee had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.2,42,00,000/- during the Financial

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), those for A.Y 2012-13, 2014- 15 and 2015-16 are against orders passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP), passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), those for A.Y 2012-13, 2014- 15 and 2015-16 are against orders passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP), passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), those for A.Y 2012-13, 2014- 15 and 2015-16 are against orders passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP), passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), those for A.Y 2012-13, 2014- 15 and 2015-16 are against orders passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP), passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), those for A.Y 2012-13, 2014- 15 and 2015-16 are against orders passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP), passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), those for A.Y 2012-13, 2014- 15 and 2015-16 are against orders passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP), passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), those for A.Y 2012-13, 2014- 15 and 2015-16 are against orders passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP), passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself it was stated