SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

Section 40A(3) are not attracted to this transaction and hence the addition is hereby directed to be deleted. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete

M/S HEADMASTER SALOON PVT.LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

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

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

Depreciation 7432860 6383927 16% Admin Exp 11420167 9805464 16% Sub Total 57244859 51110514 12% Expenses Total 90386971 83092356 9% PBT 290853 3371614 -91% 1. Sales growth at 5% has yielded only increase in absolute terms by approx Rs. 42 lacs only. Expenses growth for the year is of 9%, resulting in absolute increase by Rs. 73 lacs. Thereby leaving only

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

40A(3) of the Act calling for disallowance of the same. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) ,upholding the disallowance of Rs.1,28,000/-,accordingly is upheld. The ground of appeal No.7 raised by the assessee dismissed A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2013-14 41. Ground of appeal No.8 raised by the assessee reads as under: “8. On the facts

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 43(1) in the instant case and thus, the depreciation so claimed is directed to be allowed. 8.17 Now coming to the issue of surrender of Rs 8,00,000/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(2)(b) of the Act by unduly emphasizing on the imputed costs of bank loans and without appreciating the fact that the interest payment was made to related-parties. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,84,563/- made by the AO on account of diversion of funds by the assessee

KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

40A(2)(b) of the Act by unduly emphasizing on the imputed costs of bank loans and without appreciating the fact that the interest payment was made to related-parties. 4. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,84,563/- made by the AO on account of diversion of funds by the assessee

A.K.MULTIMETALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, MANDI GOBIND GARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A), it was stated that amount of Rs.15,000/- p.m was paid to Shri Deepak Gupta for the use of Innova Car, as lease rent, which cannot be termed as unreasonable and that had the assessee purchased the car of its own, then

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S PUBLIC CLOTHING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objections of

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1018/Chd/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Acit, M/S Public Clothing (P) Ltd., बनाम Circle-7, F-155, Sainik Farm, Ludhiana New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccp4429P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 40A(3) was to check the unaccounted / non-genuine payments, he accordingly deleted the impugned disallowance. 4. Before us, the Ld. DR has submitted that the judgement arrived at in the case of Jurisdictional High Court in ‘Gurdas Garg vs CIT’ (supra) has now been recalled by the Hon'ble High Court and the matter has been fixed

M/S GORSI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD,MANDI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, MANDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Gorsi Constructions Vs. The D.C.I.T., Private Limited,, Village Takoli, Mandi P.O. Panarasa, Teh. Autt, (H.P.) Distt. Mandi (H.P.) Pan: Aabcg4994K (Appellant) (Respondent)

40A(3) of Rs.1,55,000/- is, therefore, set aside. Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is, therefore, allowed. 10. Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee reads as under: “2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- paid as rent to agriculturist taking agricultural land

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

40A, Industrial Focal Point, Phase VIII Extn. Mohali-160059 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACQ1134G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent (VIRTUAL HEARING) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/02/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

40A, Industrial Focal Point, Phase VIII Extn. Mohali-160059 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACQ1134G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent (VIRTUAL HEARING) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/02/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

40A, Industrial Focal Point, Phase VIII Extn. Mohali-160059 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACQ1134G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent (VIRTUAL HEARING) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vineet Thakral Advocate And Shri Raman Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12/02/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date