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

36,650/- u/s 54B & 54F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in adopting indexed cost of land valued on the basis of land value on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 3,58,321/-. 4. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred

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

36,650/- u/s 54B & 54F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in adopting indexed cost of land valued on the basis of land value on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 3,58,321/-. 4. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred

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

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

36,122/- (33,00,133 - 2,64,011) has been taken into account as income by the AO while framing the assessment. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the AO has failed to verify / enquire the aforesaid facts and has not made any enquiry in this regard. Therefore, the assessment order dated

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

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

36,122/- (33,00,133 - 2,64,011) has been taken into account as income by the AO while framing the assessment. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the AO has failed to verify / enquire the aforesaid facts and has not made any enquiry in this regard. Therefore, the assessment order dated

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

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

36,122/- (33,00,133 - 2,64,011) has been taken into account as income by the AO while framing the assessment. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the AO has failed to verify / enquire the aforesaid facts and has not made any enquiry in this regard. Therefore, the assessment order dated

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

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

36,122/- (33,00,133 - 2,64,011) has been taken into account as income by the AO while framing the assessment. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the AO has failed to verify / enquire the aforesaid facts and has not made any enquiry in this regard. Therefore, the assessment order dated

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

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

36,122/- (33,00,133 - 2,64,011) has been taken into account as income by the AO while framing the assessment. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the AO has failed to verify / enquire the aforesaid facts and has not made any enquiry in this regard. Therefore, the assessment order dated

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

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

36,122/- (33,00,133 - 2,64,011) has been taken into account as income by the AO while framing the assessment. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the AO has failed to verify / enquire the aforesaid facts and has not made any enquiry in this regard. Therefore, the assessment order dated

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

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

36,122/- (33,00,133 - 2,64,011) has been taken into account as income by the AO while framing the assessment. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the AO has failed to verify / enquire the aforesaid facts and has not made any enquiry in this regard. Therefore, the assessment order dated

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

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

36,122/- (33,00,133 - 2,64,011) has been taken into account as income by the AO while framing the assessment. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the AO has failed to verify / enquire the aforesaid facts and has not made any enquiry in this regard. Therefore, the assessment order dated

CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

Price + Stamp Duty & Registration Charges 3.1 The Vendee has made a payment of Rs.2,60,00,000/- vide cheque No. 023655 on 25.01.2011. There was some dispute between the assessee and the vendee and ultimately Sale Deed was executed during the Accounting Year relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The ld. AO has confronted the assessee qua Section 43CA

CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

Price + Stamp Duty & Registration Charges 3.1 The Vendee has made a payment of Rs.2,60,00,000/- vide cheque No. 023655 on 25.01.2011. There was some dispute between the assessee and the vendee and ultimately Sale Deed was executed during the Accounting Year relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The ld. AO has confronted the assessee qua Section 43CA

ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

Price + Stamp Duty & Registration Charges 3.1 The Vendee has made a payment of Rs.2,60,00,000/- vide cheque No. 023655 on 25.01.2011. There was some dispute between the assessee and the vendee and ultimately Sale Deed was executed during the Accounting Year relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The ld. AO has confronted the assessee qua Section 43CA

ACIT,CIRCLE--2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CSJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131,132 /Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., The Acit, C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Vs Circle 2(1), Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 146, 147/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y.: 2014-15, 2015-16, The Acit, Vs M/S Csj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), C/O C.A. Ajay Kumar Jain, Chandigarh. Sco 80-81, 4Th Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccc8021G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

Price + Stamp Duty & Registration Charges 3.1 The Vendee has made a payment of Rs.2,60,00,000/- vide cheque No. 023655 on 25.01.2011. There was some dispute between the assessee and the vendee and ultimately Sale Deed was executed during the Accounting Year relevant to assessment year 2014-15. The ld. AO has confronted the assessee qua Section 43CA

M/S MAHAVIR TECHNO LTD.,,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CRICLE, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer who vide order dt. 31/12/2014 passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act duly held that the sales to the associate concern were made at an Arm’s Length Price and no adverse inference could be drawn on account of sales made, reference was made to page no. 34 to 35 of the assessee’s paper book

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.8,05,24,450/- in respect of corporate services fees. The TPO applied CUP as the most appropriate method and determined ALP of the transaction as Nil. The TPO has further observed that no independent party would have made a similar 4 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.1592/ चंडीगढ़/2018

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.8,05,24,450/- in respect of corporate services fees. The TPO applied CUP as the most appropriate method and determined ALP of the transaction as Nil. The TPO has further observed that no independent party would have made a similar 4 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.1592/ चंडीगढ़/2018

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