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 Officer the aggregate value of specified domestic transactions has been taken from the Form 3CEB filed by the appellant. Perusal of Form 3CEB, prescribed under Rule 10E, states as "Report from an accountant to be furnished under section 92E relating to International Transaction(s) and Specified domestic transaction(s). The particulars of the above transaction(s) required

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)

6 12. The assessee in written submissions has contended that once she is accepted as a non-resident, she automatically falls in the definition of “eligible assessee” u/s 144C(15)(b). It was argued that Section 144C uses two independent limbs – one for transfer-pricing

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer made a variation to the Arm's Length\nPrice and valued the transaction at Rs.517.82 per share. In other words, he\nrecommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the\nPetitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section\n144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer made a variation to the Arm's Length\nPrice and valued the transaction at Rs.517.82 per share. In other words, he\nrecommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the\nPetitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section\n144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer made a variation to the Arm's Length\nPrice and valued the transaction at Rs.517.82 per share. In other words, he\nrecommended a variation in the Arm's Length Price. In these circumstances, the\nPetitioner would certainly be an eligible Assessee as contemplated under Section\n144C(15)(b) (i) of the IT Act. Since this variation

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD,,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-5(1),(NEAC), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment order, which is under challenge before us. 3 5. Vide order dt. 31/03/2021, assessment was finalised by the National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi, pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved therewith, the assessee

M/S YAMUNA POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,JAGADHRI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 273B of the Act and no adverse view need to be taken penalising the assessee for its conduct in absence of any malafide being alleged by the authorities for non-reporting these transactions or disputing the explanation so furnished by the assessee. In any case, the TPO has examined these specific domestic transactions during the course of transfer pricing

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

6 vs. Akash Association T20171 87 taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat) wherein it was held as under: “4. Section 50C of the Act provides for special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. Sub-section (1) of section 50C provides for the adoption of the value taken by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of stamp duty

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)

6. The assessment order is set aside with the directions to the assessing officer to pass a fresh assessment order after making the requisite inquiries and verifications and giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.” 7. Against the said findings and directions of the Ld. PCIT, theassessee is in appeal before us. 8. During the course of hearing

M/S SHREE GANESH JEWELLERS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE V(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. 2.3 Further reliance was placed on the Coordinate Bench decision in case of VDB Infra

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 Grounds: Legal grounds Ground 1: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passes by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation in terms of section 153(1)/(4) and therefore, is liable to be quashed. Ground 2: Based on the facts and circumstances of the present case

ITO (TDS), PATIALA vs. M/S S.A. SINGH & CO., BHAWANIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

price. It was further submitted that M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. paid commission to the assessee for rendering its services and the commission income has been duly reflected in the P&L Account. It was submitted that the assessee firm does not own any truck or vehicles and was merely working as a commission / liaison agent between M/s Pepsico

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

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 2(47) of the LT.Act, 1961:- transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment

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

6: Shortage of stock found during search held as undisclosed sale.\nIssue 7: Commission/profit earned at estimated rate of 1% of total alleged sales and\npurchases, allegedly conducted outside books.\nIssue 8: Addition made by Ld. AO of Rs.58,09,346/- by disallowing deduction u/s\n80IC on account of GP on net sales of transaction made by SERLE

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

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of the application under sub-section (5). (7) The Adjudicating Authority shall communicate— (a) the order under clause (a) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor and the corporate debtor; (b) the order under clause (b) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor, within seven

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