SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs. 2435095/- on payment of interest of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- under section 194A. Further scrutiny of the case records revealed that as per profit & loss account, total expenditure was Rs. 1,40,14,722/- (expenditure on interest was only 11053024) against expenditure of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- on interest alone. This expenditure

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

Section 69B of the Act. In absence of any other material on\nrecord, addition was correctly deleted. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”\n11. A perusal of the above judgments would indicate that mere valuation report is not\nsufficient to conclude that the assessee has made unexplained investment. From perusal\nof the assessment, nowhere it reveals that inspite of search, Revenue

STYLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

220/- It is further submitted that the appellant was allotted Plot No. 19, Sector 22, Industrial Estate as per allotment letter R.L.A. NO. HSIIDC/3062 dated 05.06.2008. The price of the plot was fixed at Rs. 4,17,97,500/- and the appellant paid the entire consideration, the details of which are as under:- ITA 1152/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 4 Dated

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is directed to be deleted on the basis of above judgments. In the result, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 of appeal taken by the assessee company is allowed. “ 24.3 The Ld. AR in his written submission has contended as under: 1. The Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is directed to be deleted on the basis of above judgments. In the result, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 of appeal taken by the assessee company is allowed. “ 24.3 The Ld. AR in his written submission has contended as under: 1. The Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is directed to be deleted on the basis of above judgments. In the result, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 of appeal taken by the assessee company is allowed. “ 24.3 The Ld. AR in his written submission has contended as under: 1. The Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is directed to be deleted on the basis of above judgments. In the result, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 of appeal taken by the assessee company is allowed. “ 24.3 The Ld. AR in his written submission has contended as under: 1. The Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is directed to be deleted on the basis of above judgments. In the result, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 of appeal taken by the assessee company is allowed. “ 24.3 The Ld. AR in his written submission has contended as under: 1. The Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is directed to be deleted on the basis of above judgments. In the result, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 of appeal taken by the assessee company is allowed. “ 24.3 The Ld. AR in his written submission has contended as under: 1. The Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is directed to be deleted on the basis of above judgments. In the result, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 of appeal taken by the assessee company is allowed. “ 24.3 The Ld. AR in his written submission has contended as under: 1. The Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is directed to be deleted on the basis of above judgments. In the result, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 of appeal taken by the assessee company is allowed. “ 24.3 The Ld. AR in his written submission has contended as under: 1. The Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case

SH. SOHAN LAL,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -3, PANCHKULA

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

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

220 – Rs. 5,00,000) received on forced retrenchment under VRS on closure of HMT Ltd (Tractor Division), instead of exemption u/s 10(10C)of the Income Tax Act wherever there is no bar on appellate authorities to consider the additional claim of assessee. Additional Grounds 3 Difference of Gratuity compensation at 2007 and 1997 scales amounting

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

6 (S.C), it has been held that while exercising revisionary powers, the Commissioner must have an unbiased mind and he must decide the dispute in accordance with the procedure which is consistent with the principle of natural justice and that he cannot permit his mind to be influenced by the dictation of another authority; and that he cannot permit

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

6 (S.C), it has been held that while exercising revisionary powers, the Commissioner must have an unbiased mind and he must decide the dispute in accordance with the procedure which is consistent with the principle of natural justice and that he cannot permit his mind to be influenced by the dictation of another authority; and that he cannot permit

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

6 (S.C), it has been held that while exercising revisionary powers, the Commissioner must have an unbiased mind and he must decide the dispute in accordance with the procedure which is consistent with the principle of natural justice and that he cannot permit his mind to be influenced by the dictation of another authority; and that he cannot permit

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable