M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

2. Mod Furniture, assessee has shown cash payment of Rs.18,000/- on 21.06.2006, Rs. 13,172/- on 24.06.2006, Rs. 16,032/- on 1.07.2006 and Rs. 6,610/- on 2.07.2006. On the other hand in regular books of account provided, during assessment proceedings, these cash payments are reflected on 15.03.2007, 14.03.2007, 2.02.2007 and on 6.02.2007 respectively. It means cash was paid

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

251 (SC). 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has sought to place strong reliance on the decision of the Surat Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ‘Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT’, [2023] 150 taxmann.com 442 (Surat-Trib.), wherein, since the assessment A.Y. 2011-12 8 order was passed in the case of the assessee

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

2 raised by the assessee is accepted. The addition of Rs.13,26,09,358/- representing alleged estimated notional ITA 350/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 75 interest income of the assessee on the loans and advances and capital advances made by the assessee, is deleted. 52. Concerning Ground No.3, the AO observed that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. VENUS REMEDIES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2018) without appreciating the fact that the loan taken by the assessee was for working capital and waiver of it was a taxable receipt under

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

2. That the order dated 26.09.2023 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as-much he has acted beyond the purview of the powers vested in him by the Act and ignored the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

2. That the order dated 26.09.2023 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as-much he has acted beyond the purview of the powers vested in him by the Act and ignored the facts and circumstances of the case