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.”

Section 92BA, the transaction by way of investment in equity shares and dividend paid doesn’t fall in the definition of “specified domestic transactions” and thus, there is no legal basis for aggregation thereof for the purposes of making reference to TPO and any subsequent transfer pricing adjustment in respect of these transactions. No doubt, Form 3CEB is disclosure

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)

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 by all revenue authorities including the CIT(A) and the BMA authority. 6 12. The assessee in written submissions has contended that once she is accepted as a non-resident, she automatically falls

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

section 48 of the present Act does not have any reference to the market value but only to the consideration referred to in the sale deeds as the sale price of the assets which have been transferred.. 9

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 Study was illegally disregarded and ignored. Further, though the ld. DRP initially upheld the CUP in principle, it upheld the CPM, as applied by the TPO, and it went on to ultimately make the TNMM the basis for the adjustment to determine the arm’s length price of the transaction. It also has rightly been called in question

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

9 of the Assessing Officer order, which reads as under:\n\n| FY | Departure from India | Arrival in India | Days in\nabroad | Total Days\nin abroad | Total Days\nIn India | Residency Status\n| 2015-16 | 07-04-2015 | 17-04-2015 | | 249 | 117 | Non-Resident

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

9 | 249 | 117 | Non-Resident |\n| | 19-07-2015 | 21-12-2015 | 154 | | | |\n| | 05-01-2016 | 31.03.2016 | 86 | | | |\n| 2016-17 | 01.04.2016 | 01-06-2016 | 61 | 271 | 94 | Non-Resident |\n| | 10-08-2016 | 16-12-2016 | 127 | | | |\n| | 07-01-2017 | 31.03.2017 | 83 | | | |\n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017 | 18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident

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

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

9 | 249 | 117 | Non-Resident\n| | 19-07-2015\n21-12-2015 | 154 | | |\n| | 05-01-2016\n31.03.2016 | 86 | | |\n| | 01.04.2016\n01-06-2016 | 61 | | |\n| 2016-17 | 10-08-2016\n16-12-2016 | 127 | 271 | 94 | Non-Resident\n| | 07-01-2017\n31.03.2017 | 83 | | |\n| 2017-18 | 01.04.2017\n18-07-2017 | 108 | 328 | 37 | Non-Resident

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)

transfer Pricing assessment as well as regular assessment proceedings were completed. It was submitted that it is a fact on record that no adverse comment was made by the TPO about the documentation or production thereof as it was only after the examination made by the TPO, the assessment order was framed by the AO. Therefore the allegation that

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)

9. The ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing officer has made enquiry in respect of FMV of residential house as on 1-4-2001 vide notice under section 142(1) dated 07/02/2020 and asked for details of sale of property and capital gain &assessee has submitted complete details along with calculation of capital gain. It was submitted that

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

9, Chandigarh;\nIssue 11: Addition made of Rs.4,60,077 / - each in the hands of individuals/ owners\nof the house No.3100 u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act on account of difference in\nvaluation as per DVO's report as compared to the books of accounts.\nIssue 12: Disallowance of doubtful debts claimed during the year.\nIssue 13 : Addition

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

9, Chandigarh;\nIssue 11: Addition made of Rs.4,60,077 / - each in the hands of individuals/ owners\nof the house No.3100 u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act on account of difference in\nvaluation as per DVO's report as compared to the books of accounts.\nIssue 12: Disallowance of doubtful debts claimed during the year.\nIssue 13 : Addition

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

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

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

9. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee has contravened the provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by accepting loan/deposits of Rs. 1,75,00,000 in cash which is much more than the threshold limit of Rs. 20,000/- prescribed u/s 269SS from Haravtar Singh Arora of Rs. 70.00,000/- and Sh. Ajmair Singh Bhullar

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

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)

section 37(1) of the Act. 3. In this regard, briefly the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that out of total travelling expenses debited in the P&L Account, an amount of Rs. 9,21,58,400/- has been claimed by the assesssee in respect of foreign travelling expenses. Thereafter

SURESH KUMAR,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, W-4, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

price during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings. It is a measure to offset the effect of inflation and the continuous rise in the value of properties. [See: State of Tamil Nadu and others etc. v. L. Krishnan and others etc. - AIR 1996 SC 497]. Therefore, the amount payable under Section

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

9, Chandigarh;\nIssue 11: Addition made of Rs.4,60,077 / - each in the hands of individuals/ owners\nof the house No.3100 u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act on account of difference in\nvaluation as per DVO's report as compared to the books of accounts.\nIssue 12: Disallowance of doubtful debts claimed during the year.\nIssue 13 : Addition