CENTRIENT PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1201/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

Transfer Pricing Grounds: Legal grounds Ground 1: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passes by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation in terms of section 153(1)/(4) and therefore, is liable to be quashed. Ground 2: Based on the facts and circumstances of the present case

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

270A for\nunder-reporting of income.\n7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)\nconsidered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and\nthe material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that\nthe Assessing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

price in consideration of immediate payment or payment within the stipulated period.” 17.3 This income has been shown as part of “profit and gain of business” and that the same has been accepted as such in past years too. There is no dispute that it is not a “business income” nor the same has been assessed as “income from other

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

270A for\nunder-reporting of income.\n7.\nFeeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)\nconsidered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and\nthe material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that\nthe Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

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

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

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

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

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

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

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

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing