ACIT, PATIALA vs. M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

1) Dividend income exempt u/s 10 (34) & (35) Rs.4,38,91,510/- 2) Net interest income exempt u/s 10(15)(iv)(h) Rs.1,95,64,795/- Total : Rs.6,34,56,305/- 21. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,PATIALA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

1) Dividend income exempt u/s 10 (34) & (35) Rs.4,38,91,510/- 2) Net interest income exempt u/s 10(15)(iv)(h) Rs.1,95,64,795/- Total : Rs.6,34,56,305/- 21. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed expenses as per the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

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

section 36(1)(iii) being the amount of interest paid on bank loan taken A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2013-14 for acquiring of assets not put to use in the year under reference.” 53. The above ground relates to disallowance of an amount of 7,23,299/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act being the amount of interest paid

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation chart prepared by the assessee for Noida Unit shows the following plant and machinery under the head "fixed assets": - Sr. No. Particulars of assets Balance as on 31st March 2006 1 Crates and Moulds 39,38,644/- 2 Generator 1,86,916/- 3 Misc. Fixed Assets 18,65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation chart prepared by the assessee for Noida Unit shows the following plant and machinery under the head "fixed assets": - Sr. No. Particulars of assets Balance as on 31st March 2006 1 Crates and Moulds 39,38,644/- 2 Generator 1,86,916/- 3 Misc. Fixed Assets 18,65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation chart prepared by the assessee for Noida Unit shows the following plant and machinery under the head "fixed assets": - Sr. No. Particulars of assets Balance as on 31st March 2006 1 Crates and Moulds 39,38,644/- 2 Generator 1,86,916/- 3 Misc. Fixed Assets 18,65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation chart prepared by the assessee for Noida Unit shows the following plant and machinery under the head "fixed assets": - Sr. No. Particulars of assets Balance as on 31st March 2006 1 Crates and Moulds 39,38,644/- 2 Generator 1,86,916/- 3 Misc. Fixed Assets 18,65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation chart prepared by the assessee for Noida Unit shows the following plant and machinery under the head "fixed assets": - Sr. No. Particulars of assets Balance as on 31st March 2006 1 Crates and Moulds 39,38,644/- 2 Generator 1,86,916/- 3 Misc. Fixed Assets 18,65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation chart prepared by the assessee for Noida Unit shows the following plant and machinery under the head "fixed assets": - Sr. No. Particulars of assets Balance as on 31st March 2006 1 Crates and Moulds 39,38,644/- 2 Generator 1,86,916/- 3 Misc. Fixed Assets 18,65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AVON CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Circle-5, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R & C.O.No.6/Chd/2016 In M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs. The A.C.I.T., G.T. Road, Circle-5, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on account of the same was warranted having been decided in the preceding years itself in favour of the assessee. As for the investment made in the impugned year amounting to Rs.1.21 crores, the Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that it had enough own funds for making the said investment. Our attention

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. DHARAM PAL AGGARWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation, telephone and travelling expenses on account of estimated personal use thereof. 3. Vide ground no. 1 the grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 13,77,730/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii

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(1)(iii) of the Act which was worked out @13% on Rs. 2,06,24,284/- 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: GROUND No. 1 Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) Regarding the disallowance of interest u/s 36(l)iii), it is submitted that the debit

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)

depreciation allowable on plant and machinery was to be allowed - Reasons for opening assessment which had already been concluded did not show that there was any failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and thus, it was merely a change of opinion - Whether reassessment was justified - Held, no [Para 11] [In favour of 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)

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,, 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