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)

43 days in F.Y. 2019-20 and for even less in other years. The assessment year and the number of days spent by the assessee in India are available at pages 8 & 9 of the Assessing Officer order, which reads as under: Thus, the assessee’s non-resident status under section 6 of the Act stands undisputed and accepted

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

43 days during the relevant\nfinancial year. The assessee's stay in India was thus minimal and far below\nthe 182-day threshold prescribed under Section 6(1), firmly establishing her\nstatus as a Non-Resident for this year as well.\nIV.\nFor AY 2020-21 (FY 2019-20), the assessee was physically present in India for\nonly 182 days

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

43 days during the relevant\nfinancial year. The assessee's stay in India was thus minimal and far below\nthe 182-day threshold prescribed under Section 6(1), firmly establishing her\nstatus as a Non-Resident for this year as well.\n\nIV.\nFor AY 2020-21 (FY 2019-20), the assessee was physically present in India for\nonly

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

43 | Non-Resident\n| | 01.04.2020 | 29-08-2020 | 150 | | | \n| 2020-21 | 26-02-2021 | 31.03.2021 | 33 | 183 | 182 | Resident\n| | 01.04.2021 | 14-10-2021 | 196 | | | \n| 2021-22 | 23-03-2022 | 31.03.2022 | 8 | 204 | 161 | Non-Resident\n| | 01.04.2022 | 14-07-2022 | 104 | 104 | 261 | Resident\n\nThus, the assessee's non-resident status under section 6

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assesse an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including

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)

43,91,184/- Hence, Long Term Capital Gain was under assessed by Rs.2,94,71,744/-on the basis of material on record. Therefore, the assessment order for AY 2018-19 passed on 08.04.2021 in your case u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is proposed to be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

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

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER PVT. LTD., NABHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 121/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, M/S Glaxosmithkline Circle 1(1), बनाम Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Patiala Road, Vs. Nabha. Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcg8415R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

43(6)(c) of the Act, the assets transferred under slump sale stand reduced from the relevant block of asset of the seller before charging depreciation on the same. It is on this reduced value of the block of asset that the depreciation at applicable rate is then computed at the year end. 16. As regard depreciation on goodwill

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

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

43. Therefore, it is clear that necessary sanction for issuance of notice under section 148, as required under section 151 had been obtained" III. HIGH COURT OF DELHI in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income- tax-7 v. Pioneer Town Planners (P.) Ltd. [2024] 160 taxmann.com 652 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) In this case, observation of Hon'ble Delhi High

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 ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose." The perusal of relevant provisions of Section 80IC reveals that to become eligible for 80IC deduction, an assessee must satisfy the conditions mentioned in sub section (2) & (4), which are, in other words, qualifying provisions for exemption u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act 1961. Eligibility

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose." The perusal of relevant provisions of Section 80IC reveals that to become eligible for 80IC deduction, an assessee must satisfy the conditions mentioned in sub section (2) & (4), which are, in other words, qualifying provisions for exemption u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act 1961. Eligibility