SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in the nature of a clarificatory amendment and further held that as a result an order passed u/s 200A of the Act in levying fees prescribed u/s 234E for late filing of TDS statements would be rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act and is also appealable u/s 246A

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in the nature of a clarificatory amendment and further held that as a result an order passed u/s 200A of the Act in levying fees prescribed u/s 234E for late filing of TDS statements would be rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act and is also appealable u/s 246A

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in the nature of a clarificatory amendment and further held that as a result an order passed u/s 200A of the Act in levying fees prescribed u/s 234E for late filing of TDS statements would be rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act and is also appealable u/s 246A

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)

C) that the DCIT has wrongly presumed that the expenses on “R&D” work was also conducted for Haridwar unit without any nexus (d) that the Ld. DCIT has wrongly calculated the deduction u/s 80IC at Rs. 358675315/-. The assessee interalia had contended before the Ld. CIT(A) which is recorded in the impugned order as under: 1. The assessee

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)

C) that the DCIT has wrongly presumed that the expenses on “R&D” work was also conducted for Haridwar unit without any nexus (d) that the Ld. DCIT has wrongly calculated the deduction u/s 80IC at Rs. 358675315/-. The assessee interalia had contended before the Ld. CIT(A) which is recorded in the impugned order as under: 1. The assessee

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)

C) that the DCIT has wrongly presumed that the expenses on “R&D” work was also conducted for Haridwar unit without any nexus (d) that the Ld. DCIT has wrongly calculated the deduction u/s 80IC at Rs. 358675315/-. The assessee interalia had contended before the Ld. CIT(A) which is recorded in the impugned order as under: 1. The assessee

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)

C) that the DCIT has wrongly presumed that the expenses on “R&D” work was also conducted for Haridwar unit without any nexus (d) that the Ld. DCIT has wrongly calculated the deduction u/s 80IC at Rs. 358675315/-. The assessee interalia had contended before the Ld. CIT(A) which is recorded in the impugned order as under: 1. The assessee

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)

C) that the DCIT has wrongly presumed that the expenses on “R&D” work was also conducted for Haridwar unit without any nexus (d) that the Ld. DCIT has wrongly calculated the deduction u/s 80IC at Rs. 358675315/-. The assessee interalia had contended before the Ld. CIT(A) which is recorded in the impugned order as under: 1. The assessee

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)

C) that the DCIT has wrongly presumed that the expenses on “R&D” work was also conducted for Haridwar unit without any nexus (d) that the Ld. DCIT has wrongly calculated the deduction u/s 80IC at Rs. 358675315/-. The assessee interalia had contended before the Ld. CIT(A) which is recorded in the impugned order as under: 1. The assessee

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)

C) that the DCIT has wrongly presumed that the expenses on “R&D” work was also conducted for Haridwar unit without any nexus (d) that the Ld. DCIT has wrongly calculated the deduction u/s 80IC at Rs. 358675315/-. The assessee interalia had contended before the Ld. CIT(A) which is recorded in the impugned order as under: 1. The assessee

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)

C) that the DCIT has wrongly presumed that the expenses on “R&D” work was also conducted for Haridwar unit without any nexus (d) that the Ld. DCIT has wrongly calculated the deduction u/s 80IC at Rs. 358675315/-. The assessee interalia had contended before the Ld. CIT(A) which is recorded in the impugned order as under: 1. The assessee

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

246A of the Act and by “impugned order” the aforesaid demand was partly confirmed and the assessee bank appeal was partly allowed. 4.6 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred present second appeal before us and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form 36 against the “impugned order” which are as follows: 1. The learned

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\nallowed

1) + Rs.28,557/- under section 201(1A)) was quantified /\nassessed leading to a demand by the Income Tax Department upon the\nassessee bank.\n4.5 That the assesse being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dt.\n09/01/2019 preferred a first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act\nand by \"impugned order” the aforesaid demand was partly confirmed\nand

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\r\nallowed

1) + Rs.28,557/- under section 201(1A)) was quantified /\r\nassessed leading to a demand by the Income Tax Department upon the\r\nassessee bank.\r\n4.5 That the assesse being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dt.\r\n09/01/2019 preferred a first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act\r\nand by \"impugned order” the aforesaid demand