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

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 Officer, DCIT, 1(2)(2), New Delhi till now and hence the final order in the case is being finalized without giving effect to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP in the case of the assessee as the time limit for completion of the final order expires by 31/10/2024. However, this final order may be rectified accordingly

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

price at Rs.2,42,00,000/-. The question is when long term gain or short term gain arises. It is on the date on which an asset (whether long term or short term) is transferred. As per section

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

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

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

SURESH KUMAR,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, W-4, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

42. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no independent application of mind by the sanctioning authorities for according approval. Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted

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

42. The learned DR further submitted that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the Court did not have the benefit of considering the subsequent statutory amendments brought into effect from 01.04.2010 by insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A/145B. It was also pointed out that the CBDT, vide Circular dated

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

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

42. The learned DR further submitted that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the Court did not have the benefit of considering the subsequent statutory amendments brought into effect from 01.04.2010 by insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A/145B. It was also pointed out that the CBDT, vide Circular dated

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

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

42. The learned DR further submitted that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the Court did not have the benefit of considering the subsequent statutory amendments brought into effect from 01.04.2010 by insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A/145B. It was also pointed out that the CBDT, vide Circular dated

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

42. The learned DR further submitted that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the Court did not have the benefit of considering the subsequent statutory amendments brought into effect from 01.04.2010 by insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A/145B. It was also pointed out that the CBDT, vide Circular dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

42. The learned DR further submitted that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the Court did not have the benefit of considering the subsequent statutory amendments brought into effect from 01.04.2010 by insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A/145B. It was also pointed out that the CBDT, vide Circular dated

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

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

42. The learned DR further submitted that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the Court did not have the benefit of considering the subsequent statutory amendments brought into effect from 01.04.2010 by insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A/145B. It was also pointed out that the CBDT, vide Circular dated

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

42. The learned DR further submitted that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the Court did not have the benefit of considering the subsequent statutory amendments brought into effect from 01.04.2010 by insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A/145B. It was also pointed out that the CBDT, vide Circular dated

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

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

42. The learned DR further submitted that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the Court did not have the benefit of considering the subsequent statutory amendments brought into effect from 01.04.2010 by insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A/145B. It was also pointed out that the CBDT, vide Circular dated

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

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

42. The learned DR further submitted that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra), the Court did not have the benefit of considering the subsequent statutory amendments brought into effect from 01.04.2010 by insertion of section 56(2)(viii) and section 145A/145B. It was also pointed out that the CBDT, vide Circular dated

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

42,258/- relating to Madhya Pradesh TUFS as a revenue receipt rather than a capital receipt. 8.2 This issue is also before us since it was recalled vide order dt. 07/05/2024, passed in MA. No. 10/Chd/2023, for fresh adjudication on merits. 8.3 This issue stands, decided by us while dealing with A.Y 2013-14 (supra). For the reason recorded therein