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

6 months on terms and conditions stipulated there in, without transferring any right of ownership, use or possession of the property, or transferring any right over the income arising from such property to the purchaser and having decided to execute the sale deed in a future date the transaction of sale of properly was not completed in terms of section

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

6 months on terms and conditions stipulated there in, without transferring any right of ownership, use or possession of the property, or transferring any right over the income arising from such property to the purchaser and having decided to execute the sale deed in a future date the transaction of sale of properly was not completed in terms of section

M/S NECTAR LIFESCIENCE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 92C of the Act to the TPO for determining the arms length price in respect of specific domestic transaction undertaken by the assessee. The TPO after examining the transfer pricing adjustment and analyzing the specific domestic transaction with associated enterprises, proceeded to bench mark the power from eligible unit to non eligible unit specifically supply of electricity and steam

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S DISTRICT MANAGER PUNJAB, SANGRUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

43-33, Phase 2, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./TAN NO: PTLP13172F (Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh order dt 01.3.2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.09.2018 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Atul Goyal, CA आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 162/CHD/2016 "नधा

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. THE DISTT. MANAGER, FATEHGARH SAHIB

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

43-33, Phase 2, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./TAN NO: PTLP13172F (Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh order dt 01.3.2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.09.2018 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Atul Goyal, CA आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 162/CHD/2016 "नधा

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S DISTRICT MANAGER PUNJAB, SANGRUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

43-33, Phase 2, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./TAN NO: PTLP13172F (Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh order dt 01.3.2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.09.2018 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Atul Goyal, CA आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 162/CHD/2016 "नधा

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (F&A) (PERSONAL RESPONSIBLE),SHIMLA vs. ITO (TDS), SHIMLA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

43-33, Phase 2, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./TAN NO: PTLP13172F (Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh order dt 01.3.2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.09.2018 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Atul Goyal, CA आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 162/CHD/2016 "नधा

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S DISTRICT MANAGER PUNJAB,

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

43-33, Phase 2, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./TAN NO: PTLP13172F (Appeal against the order of CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh order dt 01.3.2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.09.2018 "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Atul Goyal, CA आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 162/CHD/2016 "नधा