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.”

transfer pricing provisions. Similarly divided paid is not an item of expense but appropriation of profits. Thus, dividends are not subject to arm's length pricing principles. Hence Ld. TPO, Ld. A.O & Worthy CIT(A) are not justified to hold that once these items are reported in Form 3CEB as specified Domestic Transactions being any expenditure in respect of which

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 made a variation to the Arm's Length Price and valued the transaction at Rs. 517.82 per share. In other words, he recommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the Petitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section 144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

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)

transferred..." 23.1 The Department has argued with much emphasis and vehemence that it is only as a last resort that the Other Method may be taken recourse to. This, however, is found to be not the correct position in law. As noted hereinbefore, Rule 10C of the Rules unequivocally lays down that it is the method best suited, which will

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer made a variation to the Arm's Length\nPrice and valued the transaction at Rs.517.82 per share. In other words, he\nrecommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the\nPetitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section\n144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer made a variation to the Arm's Length\nPrice and valued the transaction at Rs.517.82 per share. In other words, he\nrecommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the\nPetitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section\n144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer made a variation to the Arm's Length\nPrice and valued the transaction at Rs.517.82 per share. In other words, he\nrecommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the\nPetitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section\n144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

M/S YAMUNA POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,JAGADHRI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR

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 documentation which contained the functional and economic analysis of the assessee and the comparables and no adverse inference was drawn in respect of International and Specified Domestic Transactions so undertaken by the assessee in terms of his order passed under section 92CA(3) dt. 28/09/2017. At the same time, the TPO in his order has stated that

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

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

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

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

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

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

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 and the Tribunal held that AO has no power to reclassify the transaction from the share application money to loan. 8.3 It was further submitted that while levying the penalty, Additional

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment. From perusal of the financial statements, it is evident that there is neither an international transaction nor specified domestic transactions under Section 92BA apply to the assessee. The Ld. AR had further submitted that the Ld. PCIT has not pointed out, either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order, that the assessee has entered

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

price fluctuations. The reliance in\nthis respect can be placed on the following decisions:\n“(i) [Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata v. Narula\nEducational Trust [2021] 126 taxmann.com 158 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib

BALJIT SINGH,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

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

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

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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