M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS in view of the explicit provisions of sections 5 8s 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 14A

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS in view of the explicit provisions of sections 5 8s 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 14A

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS in view of the explicit provisions of sections 5 8s 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 14A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

14A. 23.2 We also hold that the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has rightly held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Oil Industry development board case has held that “ In the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made.” 23.3 We therefore find no infirmity

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

14A. 23.2 We also hold that the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has rightly held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Oil Industry development board case has held that “ In the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made.” 23.3 We therefore find no infirmity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

14A. 23.2 We also hold that the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has rightly held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Oil Industry development board case has held that “ In the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made.” 23.3 We therefore find no infirmity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

14A. 23.2 We also hold that the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has rightly held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Oil Industry development board case has held that “ In the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made.” 23.3 We therefore find no infirmity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

14A. 23.2 We also hold that the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has rightly held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Oil Industry development board case has held that “ In the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made.” 23.3 We therefore find no infirmity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

14A. 23.2 We also hold that the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has rightly held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Oil Industry development board case has held that “ In the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made.” 23.3 We therefore find no infirmity

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

14A. 23.2 We also hold that the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has rightly held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Oil Industry development board case has held that “ In the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made.” 23.3 We therefore find no infirmity

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

14A. 23.2 We also hold that the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order has rightly held that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Oil Industry development board case has held that “ In the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made.” 23.3 We therefore find no infirmity

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, PANCHKULA

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS reflected in Form 26AS. It was submitted that such income is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(e). For the dividend income, it was submitted that it is not exempt under section 10(34) but taxable and deductible u/s 80P(2)(d), and the assessee had already disallowed proportionate expenses suo motu. 5.2 The CIT(A), after examining

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, PANCHKULA

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS reflected in Form 26AS. It was submitted that such income is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(e). For the dividend income, it was submitted that it is not exempt under section 10(34) but taxable and deductible u/s 80P(2)(d), and the assessee had already disallowed proportionate expenses suo motu. 5.2 The CIT(A), after examining

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, PANCHKULA

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS reflected in Form 26AS. It was submitted that such income is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(e). For the dividend income, it was submitted that it is not exempt under section 10(34) but taxable and deductible u/s 80P(2)(d), and the assessee had already disallowed proportionate expenses suo motu. 5.2 The CIT(A), after examining

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., PANCHKULA

In the result, we upheld the

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

TDS under section 194A of the Act. Hence, the provision so made was also held disallowable under section 40(a)(ia)of the Act and this was one of the reason recorded before issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, during the reassessment proceedings, the AO accepted the submissions of the assessee that no tax was required

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the above action of the CIT(A), ITD is contrary to the settled position of law that Income Tax Authorities are duty bound to compute the correct income of the assessee. 6. Apropos Ground

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

14A of the Act is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Oil Industry Development Board followed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT(A) although supported the order of the A.O. but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel

M/S TDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS P. LTD.,MOHALI vs. DCIT, MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

TDS Management Consultants P. The DCIT बनाम Ltd. Circle VI(1) SCF 81, Phase 6, Mohali Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AACCT5653K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Arvind Badoni, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 04/08/2021 उदघोषणा

M/S HARYANA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

14A for disallowance of expenditure on investments which were made in earlier years. Thus, the disallowance of Rs. 1,33,610/- is deleted. 21. We have gone through the facts on record, since no exempt income was earned during the year and no interest expenditure has been incurred on any loan the addition made is not called