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.”

transfer pricing provisions. Similarly divided paid is not an item of expense but appropriation of profits. Thus, dividends are not subject to arm's length pricing principles. Hence Ld. TPO, Ld. A.O & Worthy CIT(A) are not justified to hold that once these items are reported in Form 3CEB as specified Domestic Transactions being any expenditure in respect of which

M/S SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

48,18,768/- as undisclosed income of the firm. The Ld. PCIT concluded that the assessment order was passed without making inquires or verification and, therefore, the order of the AO was erroneous as the AO had not examined / verified about the complete details / facts and that it was also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. PCIT

M/S OM CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

48,18,768/- as undisclosed income of the firm. The Ld. PCIT concluded that the assessment order was passed without making inquires or verification and, therefore, the order of the AO was erroneous as the AO had not examined / verified about the complete details / facts and that it was also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. PCIT

M/S MAA BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

48,18,768/- as undisclosed income of the firm. The Ld. PCIT concluded that the assessment order was passed without making inquires or verification and, therefore, the order of the AO was erroneous as the AO had not examined / verified about the complete details / facts and that it was also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. PCIT

M/S OMKAR ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

48,18,768/- as undisclosed income of the firm. The Ld. PCIT concluded that the assessment order was passed without making inquires or verification and, therefore, the order of the AO was erroneous as the AO had not examined / verified about the complete details / facts and that it was also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. PCIT

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

price as per transfer fees charged ,of 2.5 crores ,was substituted for the actual sale consideration received of 1.14 crores by the Revenue ,by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that LOI’s do not qualify as land and or building to which only the provisions of section 50C are applicable

SH. RAJINDER SINGH BEDI,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

48 would indicate that it contemplates that income chargeable under the head ‘Capital Gains’ shall be computed by deducting following amounts from the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the capital assets : a) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; b) The cost of acquisition of the asset

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer of the capital asset" the following amounts— Thus for the purpose of computing the capital gains, full value of consideration received is to be considered. No where this section refers to consideration mentioned in the documents "registered deed in respect of immovable property", although it is subject to section 50C where the property is registered at a price less

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer of the capital asset" the following amounts— Thus for the purpose of computing the capital gains, full value of consideration received is to be considered. No where this section refers to consideration mentioned in the documents "registered deed in respect of immovable property", although it is subject to section 50C where the property is registered at a price less

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer of the capital asset" the following amounts— Thus for the purpose of computing the capital gains, full value of consideration received is to be considered. No where this section refers to consideration mentioned in the documents "registered deed in respect of immovable property", although it is subject to section 50C where the property is registered at a price less

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-

section 48. be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. " In view of the above, the calculation of short term capital gain u/s 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is as under:- 1. Sale price

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. JAMES HOTELS LTD, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

Transfer Pricing Officer and thereafter the Ld. AO changed the nature of transaction from share application money and treated it as loan on which notional interest was computed. Hon'ble ITAT held that AO has no power to reclassify the transaction from the share application money to loan. 12.18 It was further submitted that while levying the penalty, Additional

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

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

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

transfer pricing adjustment to be made as per ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2015-16 Page 45 of 120 provisions of the Act, but at the same time directed that for treating the same as international transaction delay beyond 60 days is to be considered and the interest rate

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,NABHA vs. DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

transfer pricing adjustment to be made as per ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2015-16 Page 45 of 120 provisions of the Act, but at the same time directed that for treating the same as international transaction delay beyond 60 days is to be considered and the interest rate

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

transfer pricing adjustment to be made as per ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2015-16 Page 45 of 120 provisions of the Act, but at the same time directed that for treating the same as international transaction delay beyond 60 days is to be considered and the interest rate

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

transfer pricing adjustment to be made as per ITA Nos.219 to 222,225 to 227,242, 228, 344/Chd/2017 ITA No.1495/Chd/2019 A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2015-16 Page 45 of 120 provisions of the Act, but at the same time directed that for treating the same as international transaction delay beyond 60 days is to be considered and the interest rate