M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

135 of the Companies Act. 2013 (10 of 2013) shall not be claimed to be an expenditure incurredby the assessee for the purposes of the business or professions.” 5.2.1. From above, it is well established that for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 37(1) of the Act, expenditure should be incurred for the purpose of the business which

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

135 of the Companies Act. 2013 (10 of 2013) shall not be claimed to be an expenditure incurredby the assessee for the purposes of the business or professions.” 5.2.1. From above, it is well established that for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 37(1) of the Act, expenditure should be incurred for the purpose of the business which

ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negi

TDS, addition of Rs.38,307/- on account of disallowance made u/s 36(1) (va) of the Act for not depositing the employee’s contribution welfare funds before the due date and addition of Rs. 20,973/- on account of disallowance u/s 14 A of the Act. However, after allowing set off the unabsorbed depreciation

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

135 (Delhi HC) [Pg. 43-45 of PB-CL for AY 2004-05 & 2005-06] - IAC v. Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (India) Ltd.: 14 1TD 564 (Bom. Tribunal) - Wipro Limited vs. DCIT : 96 TTJ 211 (Bangalore Tribunal). - Samsung India Electronics Limited (ITA No. 3734/Del/2002) (Delhi Tribunal) - Jet Airways India (P) Ltd. vs CIT (in 4228/M/2000 for assessment year

M/S SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & COMPANY,AMBALA CITY vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

135 2,41,41,930 6.64% 8.7 Further, regarding large payment made to contractor under section 194C of the Act, our reference was drawn to the notice under section 142(1) dt. 20/01/2020 which is placed at assessee’s paper book at pages 17 to 19 and our reference was drawn to Part B of Annexure to the said notice

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

135 of 2016 and Instant Holding Ltd. ITA No. 20168 of 2011 and SLP has also been admitted against the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case M/s VardhmanChemtech Private Limited in ITA No. 322/2016. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 81,348/- made u/s 14A determined

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS and proof of depositing the same was enclosed at assessee's Paper Book pages 1638- 1776. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that there are so many sub contractors and as per the alleged documents found from the premises of the Chartered Accountant Shri Gurinder Kumar Garg, the total parties are more than 150 which include the alleged

SH. KULDEEP SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. GANESH DASS MEHTA,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALDEV SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALBIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. CHADAT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALWINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BANT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. BALDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. JOGINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. GURDEEP SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated

SH. JAGTAR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanandgiri Maheshgiri 3.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has further erred both in law and on fact in invoking section 56(2)(vii) read with section 57(iv) of the Act to make the impugned addition. It is therefore prayed that, impugned order made under section 263(1) of the Act dated