VIMAL ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, PATIALA, PUNJAB

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

36(1)(viia), Tribunal rightly held that reopening assessment initiated beyond four years was bad in law - Whether SLP filed by revenue against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee] [2015] 59 taxmann.com 391 (Punjab & Haryana) HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA State Bank of Patiala v. Commissioner of Income-tax* Section

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1964 were provided in the Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, ITR and also before the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 7. That the detail, bifurcation and evidence of all expenses attributable to the exempted and non-exempted units were provided/submitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer and Assessing Officer during

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1964 were provided in the Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, ITR and also before the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 7. That the detail, bifurcation and evidence of all expenses attributable to the exempted and non-exempted units were provided/submitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer and Assessing Officer during

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

36:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

36:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

36:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

36:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 36(l)(iii)." Further, in the case of CIT Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. quoted above, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that: - "Once it is borne out from the records that the assessee had borrowed certain funds on which liability to pay tax is being incurred and on the other hand, certain amounts had been advanced

VIRGO ALUMINUM LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. PR. C.I.T., CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 438/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

36(2) of the Act. It was incumbent upon the AO to conduct the requisite enquiries to ascertain the genuineness of the assessee's claim of the said write off. Thus the AO prima-facie failed to conduct even the basic inquiries and cross verification in respect of the given issue, what to talk of conducting any worthwhile enquiries

M/S IOL CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-I, LUDHIANA

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

section 36(l)(iii) of the I.T. Act The same would form part of the assets and depreciation would be allowed

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)

36: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC New Delhi has erred in deciding that the disallowances of deduction claimed U/s 80IC done by the Assessing officer is against the law and facts of the case. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is 2. not justified in deleting disallowance of misc.other expenses

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)

36: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC New Delhi has erred in deciding that the disallowances of deduction claimed U/s 80IC done by the Assessing officer is against the law and facts of the case. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is 2. not justified in deleting disallowance of misc.other expenses

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)

36: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC New Delhi has erred in deciding that the disallowances of deduction claimed U/s 80IC done by the Assessing officer is against the law and facts of the case. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is 2. not justified in deleting disallowance of misc.other expenses

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)

36: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC New Delhi has erred in deciding that the disallowances of deduction claimed U/s 80IC done by the Assessing officer is against the law and facts of the case. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is 2. not justified in deleting disallowance of misc.other expenses

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)

36: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC New Delhi has erred in deciding that the disallowances of deduction claimed U/s 80IC done by the Assessing officer is against the law and facts of the case. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is 2. not justified in deleting disallowance of misc.other expenses

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)

36: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC New Delhi has erred in deciding that the disallowances of deduction claimed U/s 80IC done by the Assessing officer is against the law and facts of the case. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is 2. not justified in deleting disallowance of misc.other expenses

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)

36: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC New Delhi has erred in deciding that the disallowances of deduction claimed U/s 80IC done by the Assessing officer is against the law and facts of the case. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is 2. not justified in deleting disallowance of misc.other expenses

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)

36: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC New Delhi has erred in deciding that the disallowances of deduction claimed U/s 80IC done by the Assessing officer is against the law and facts of the case. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) is 2. not justified in deleting disallowance of misc.other expenses