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 paid and the deed is delivered . In the percent case, from the statement of case itself as drawn up by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the parties had clearly intended that despite the execution and registration of sale deeds, transfer by way of sale will become effective only on payment of the entire consideration amount

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 paid and the deed is delivered . In the percent case, from the statement of case itself as drawn up by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the parties had clearly intended that despite the execution and registration of sale deeds, transfer by way of sale will become effective only on payment of the entire consideration amount

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

M/S NECTAR LIFESCIENCE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 92C of the Act to the TPO for determining the arms length price in respect of specific domestic transaction undertaken by the assessee. The TPO after examining the transfer pricing adjustment and analyzing the specific domestic transaction with associated enterprises, proceeded to bench mark the power from eligible unit to non eligible unit specifically supply of electricity and steam

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

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

27 to 50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case

M/S HIND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS CONTRCTORS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

27 to 50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case

M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

27 to 50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case

M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

27 to 50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case

M/S HIMALYAN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

27 to 50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case

M/S ANAND ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SANGURUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

27 to 50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case

M/S AMBEY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

27 to 50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

27 to 50 of the paper book. It was submitted that, thus, the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not carried out any inquiries was factually incorrect because the AO had issued detailed questionnaires and further the assessee also had duly responded to the same. It was further submitted that it is not the case

M/S SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

M/S OMKAR ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

M/S OM CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

M/S MAA BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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