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.”

4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has sustained the said Transfer Pricing adjustment and the relevant findings of the ld CIT(A) read as under: “6.2 In this grounds of appeal the appellant has contested the addition of Rs. 89,22,440/- on account of difference in Arms Length

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

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

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

C) No. 18495/2017)\nMovaliyaBhikubhgaiBalabhai\n22. It was submitted that the operative part of the direction of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 15.9.2017 reads as under:-\n2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for\nagricultural land or not, the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the\nprovisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

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

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the statutory interest paid under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

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

C) No. 18495/2017)\nMovaliyaBhikubhgaiBalabhai\n22. It was submitted that the operative part of the direction of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court dated 15.9.2017 reads as under:-\n2) While determining as to whether the compensation paid was for\nagricultural land or not, the Assessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the\nprovisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition

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 passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA. For this class of assessees, it prescribes a collegium of three commissioners, once objections are preferred. The Dispute Resolution Panel's powers are coterminous with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), including the power to confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed and to consider the issues not agitated

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

transferred to give effect to commercial transactions\nshould be kept outside the ambit of s.2(22)(e). He in this respect has placed reliance upon\nthe following case laws:\na. Pradip Kumar Malhotra V. CIT [2001] 338 ITR 538 (Cal HC).\nb. DCIT vs. Lakra Brothers, 2007, 106 TTJ 0250, Chandigarh ITAT.\nc. Bagmane Constructions