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

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

65,318/- in view of returned income by the assessee. The AO also held that in view of the fact that the assessee firm had failed to furnish a certified copy of the partnership deed, the assessee firm was not eligible for any deduction on account of salary and interest paid to the partners. 3. Thereafter, the assessment records were

M/S HIND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS CONTRCTORS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

65,318/- in view of returned income by the assessee. The AO also held that in view of the fact that the assessee firm had failed to furnish a certified copy of the partnership deed, the assessee firm was not eligible for any deduction on account of salary and interest paid to the partners. 3. Thereafter, the assessment records were

M/S HIMALYAN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

65,318/- in view of returned income by the assessee. The AO also held that in view of the fact that the assessee firm had failed to furnish a certified copy of the partnership deed, the assessee firm was not eligible for any deduction on account of salary and interest paid to the partners. 3. Thereafter, the assessment records were

M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

65,318/- in view of returned income by the assessee. The AO also held that in view of the fact that the assessee firm had failed to furnish a certified copy of the partnership deed, the assessee firm was not eligible for any deduction on account of salary and interest paid to the partners. 3. Thereafter, the assessment records were

M/S AMBEY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

65,318/- in view of returned income by the assessee. The AO also held that in view of the fact that the assessee firm had failed to furnish a certified copy of the partnership deed, the assessee firm was not eligible for any deduction on account of salary and interest paid to the partners. 3. Thereafter, the assessment records were

M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

65,318/- in view of returned income by the assessee. The AO also held that in view of the fact that the assessee firm had failed to furnish a certified copy of the partnership deed, the assessee firm was not eligible for any deduction on account of salary and interest paid to the partners. 3. Thereafter, the assessment records were

M/S ANAND ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SANGURUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

65,318/- in view of returned income by the assessee. The AO also held that in view of the fact that the assessee firm had failed to furnish a certified copy of the partnership deed, the assessee firm was not eligible for any deduction on account of salary and interest paid to the partners. 3. Thereafter, the assessment records were

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

65,318/- in view of returned income by the assessee. The AO also held that in view of the fact that the assessee firm had failed to furnish a certified copy of the partnership deed, the assessee firm was not eligible for any deduction on account of salary and interest paid to the partners. 3. Thereafter, the assessment records were

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

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

65,500/- per acre i.e. at the rate of Rs.592,045 per sq. yards as on the\nday of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners\nare also held entitled to all the statutory benefits including solatium at the\nrate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum and\ninterest

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

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

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

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

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

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

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

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

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

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

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

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks

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

price of international transaction of export of goods. Re: Incorrect exclusion of comparable by the TPO In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that while applying TNMM, the following companies excluded by the TPO in the impugned order ought to be considered as comparable for the reasons tabulated as under: Company Reasons for Remarks of the applicant Name Remarks