A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, 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 acting in accordance with law pass order u/s 92CA(3), the same cannot be treated as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written differently. Section 263

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Section 263 (1) the PCIT or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceedings under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the AO (or Transfer Pricing

SHRI HARI & CO OWNERS,KAITHAL vs. PR. CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, ROHTAK

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Section 263 (1) the PCIT or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceedings under this Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the AO (or Transfer Pricing

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961,extracted by the PCIT identified five heads: (i) Provision for development expenses of Rs.100 crore; ii) Oxford Street Project, Zirakpur – investment of Rs.26.50 crore and TDS u/s 194-IA; (iii) Advances from customers Rs.64,285.60 lakh and Advance against property Rs.7,607.14 lakh; (iv) Rs.921.39 lakh “previous year taxes” appearing in Reserves

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263\n(1) & Explanation 2 with which we are primarily concerned.\n\n263. (1) The Principal Commissioner Principal Chief Commissioner or\nChief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may\ncall for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act,\nand if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing\nOfficer or the Transfer Pricing

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale to save STT. The beneficiary (an individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale to save STT. The beneficiary (an individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale to save STT. The beneficiary (an individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

SMT. RITU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

transferred to\nthe beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through\npreferential allotment or off-line sale to save STT. The beneficiary\n(an individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period\nafter which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income tax\nAct 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

transferred\nto the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through\npreferential allotment or off-line sale to save STT. The beneficiary\n(an individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period\nafter which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income\ntax Act 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

transferred\nto the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through\npreferential allotment or off-line sale to save STT. The beneficiary\n(an individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period\nafter which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income\ntax Act 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

transferred\nto the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through\npreferential allotment or off-line sale to save STT. The beneficiary\n(an individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period\nafter which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income\ntax Act 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

price with low level of construction which cannot be compared with residential house on independent plot in posh area. 15. The Ld. AR further submitted that PCIT has placed reliance on gift deed dated 8/10/2009 executed in favour of the assessee by his father. Stamp duty is charged on minimum collector for stamp duty purposes and it cannot reflect

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other