M/S NOVA IRON AND STEEL LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Filing Of Income Tax Return.

section 43B on account of 2.2 bonus payable which was also duly paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of income tax return. Further the assessee while filing the return of income, had inadvertently claimed depreciation

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

section 43B is called for as verified by the auditor in the tax auditor report and the fact that the previous year results have been accepted by the Revenue without any additions. No adverse finding has been recorded by ld CIT(A) and at the same time, he has also followed the same practice as done by the AO whereby

M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

section 43B is called for as verified by the auditor in the tax auditor report and the fact that the previous year results have been accepted by the Revenue without any additions. No adverse finding has been recorded by ld CIT(A) and at the same time, he has also followed the same practice as done by the AO whereby

M/S RECORDERS AND MEDICARE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.653 & 654/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

section 43B of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that since the assessee was unable to substantiate his explanation that the loan had been taken from any bank or financial institution, so as to be eligible for deduction on payment basis u/s 43B of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) had upheld the disallowance. 5. Similarly the Ld.Counsel

M/S RECORDERS AND MEDICARE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.653 & 654/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

section 43B of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that since the assessee was unable to substantiate his explanation that the loan had been taken from any bank or financial institution, so as to be eligible for deduction on payment basis u/s 43B of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) had upheld the disallowance. 5. Similarly the Ld.Counsel

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)

43B, as available from the income tax return; that it was thus, that net interest of Rs.8.77 crore was claimed as expense of interest during the year; that therefore, disallowance, if any, of proportionate notional interest at Average to Total Assets can be made only out of the interest of Rs.8.77 crore claimed by the assessee as interest expenditure during

M/S MOUNTAIN STEEL PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-1(3), CHANDIARH

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 43B(b) this addition made by the Assessing Officer is not warranted and hence hereby directed to be deleted. 6. Ground no. 4 pertains to disallowance of expenses of Rs. 1,91,626/- on account of Car maintenance. The Ld. AR submitted that the payment of the car was made from the funds of the company and used

M/S RELIANT INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

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

Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO wherein he had not allowed the prayer of the appellant made during assessment to reduce the erroneously made suo-motto disallowance of Rs.66,91,000/- made