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)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It has been contended that apropos the advance made to “M/s Zeal Exim P.Ltd.” (supra), no business expediency for making the advance has been proved. 26. Having considered the rival submissions made on the basis of the material available on record, where the facts are not disputed, we find that the availability

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)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It has been contended that apropos the advance made to “M/s Zeal Exim P.Ltd.” (supra), no business expediency for making the advance has been proved. 26. Having considered the rival submissions made on the basis of the material available on record, where the facts are not disputed, we find that the availability

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)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It has been contended that apropos the advance made to “M/s Zeal Exim P.Ltd.” (supra), no business expediency for making the advance has been proved. 26. Having considered the rival submissions made on the basis of the material available on record, where the facts are not disputed, we find that the availability

M/S KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1014 To 1016/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was pointed out that additional evidences to substantiate the contention was also filed alongwith an application seeking admission of the same stating that they could not be filed earlier since the documents had got misplaced on shifting the office of the assessee. 12. Ld.Counsel contended that its arguments in the impugned ground were

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

36(1)(vii) of the Act. Basis section 147 the Department / Revenue contends that a mere perusal of Section 147 reveal that there is no reference or mention explicity or impliedly to a new tangible information as claimed by the assessee to the effect that there must be a new tangible information for reopening of the assessment

SH. DINKAR KHANNA,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT -1, CIRCLE 1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS of Rs. 311746/- which is duly reflected in Form 26AS. 3. That the Worthy CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has also erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1945/- on account of labour welfare fund employees share which was already disallowed by the assessee while filing the return of income. 4. That the Appellant craves leave for permission

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

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, 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

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, 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

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

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

36(1)(iii) can be made if no loan has been taken for investment in capital work in progress, and further for the verification of this fact, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to ascertain the utilization of various loans taken by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

36(1)(iii) can be made if no loan has been taken for investment in capital work in progress, and further for the verification of this fact, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to ascertain the utilization of various loans taken by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with

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

M/S PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

section 36(1)(iii). This being allowable as business expenditure, the disallowance made on this account be deleted. 2. As per the facts and circumstance of the case and as per the provisions of law, the pispute Resolution Panel has erred in its directions, and the assessing officer has erred in disallowing

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

section 36(1)(iii). This being allowable as business expenditure, the disallowance made on this account be deleted. 2. As per the facts and circumstance of the case and as per the provisions of law, the pispute Resolution Panel has erred in its directions, and the assessing officer has erred in disallowing