ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. SHIVOM COTSPIN LIMITED, SIRMOUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation in any year) as on 1st day of the same financial year. Thus, it is clear that the assessee does not fulfill the requisite conditions of substantial expansion, as it had not made the requisite of investment and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 801c @ 100%, as per the direction

DCIT-CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. M/S SHIVOM COTSPIN LTD., SIRMOUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation in any year) as on 1st day of the same financial year. Thus, it is clear that the assessee does not fulfill the requisite conditions of substantial expansion, as it had not made the requisite of investment and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 801c @ 100%, as per the direction

SHIVOM COTSPIN LIMITED,KALA AMB vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation in any year) as on 1st day of the same financial year. Thus, it is clear that the assessee does not fulfill the requisite conditions of substantial expansion, as it had not made the requisite of investment and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 801c @ 100%, as per the direction

DCIT-CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. M/S SHIVOM COTSPIN LTD., SIRMOUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation in any year) as on 1st day of the same financial year. Thus, it is clear that the assessee does not fulfill the requisite conditions of substantial expansion, as it had not made the requisite of investment and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 801c @ 100%, as per the direction

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

Section 80-IC. Moreover, in the present case, the audit report has been filed within the permissible time limit as prescribed by the law. Further, regarding the non- application of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Commissioner of income Tax Vs G.M. Knitting Industries (P) Ltd." it is submitted that in the said case

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

MAHAJAN CONVEYER INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. ITO-WARD,PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

Section 43(1). The contrary findings of the Ld. A.O. and confirmation of the same by Ld. CIT(A), in total disregard of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, is unsustainable being most arbitrary, unjust and illegal. 6. That even otherwise, the disallowance having increased the business profits of assessee, the same would have been allowed deduction u/s 801C. 7. That

MAHAJAN CONVEYER INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. ITO-WARD, PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

Section 43(1). The contrary findings of the Ld. A.O. and confirmation of the same by Ld. CIT(A), in total disregard of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, is unsustainable being most arbitrary, unjust and illegal. 6. That even otherwise, the disallowance having increased the business profits of assessee, the same would have been allowed deduction u/s 801C. 7. That

MAHAJAN CONVEYER INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. ITO-WARD,PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

Section 43(1). The contrary findings of the Ld. A.O. and confirmation of the same by Ld. CIT(A), in total disregard of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, is unsustainable being most arbitrary, unjust and illegal. 6. That even otherwise, the disallowance having increased the business profits of assessee, the same would have been allowed deduction u/s 801C. 7. That

MAHAJAN CONVEYER INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. ITO-WARD,PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

Section 43(1). The contrary findings of the Ld. A.O. and confirmation of the same by Ld. CIT(A), in total disregard of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, is unsustainable being most arbitrary, unjust and illegal. 6. That even otherwise, the disallowance having increased the business profits of assessee, the same would have been allowed deduction u/s 801C. 7. That

MAHAJAN CONVEYER INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. ITO-WARD,PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

Section 43(1). The contrary findings of the Ld. A.O. and confirmation of the same by Ld. CIT(A), in total disregard of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, is unsustainable being most arbitrary, unjust and illegal. 6. That even otherwise, the disallowance having increased the business profits of assessee, the same would have been allowed deduction u/s 801C. 7. That

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)

801C deduction. That the Appellant craves, leave for permission to add, amend, or alter any 3. ground of appeal at the time of hearing. Record of Hearing 15. The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 14/08/2024 and 27/08/2024 when both the Ld. AR for the assessee and Ld. DR for Revenue appeared before

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)

801C deduction. That the Appellant craves, leave for permission to add, amend, or alter any 3. ground of appeal at the time of hearing. Record of Hearing 15. The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 14/08/2024 and 27/08/2024 when both the Ld. AR for the assessee and Ld. DR for Revenue appeared before

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)

801C deduction. That the Appellant craves, leave for permission to add, amend, or alter any 3. ground of appeal at the time of hearing. Record of Hearing 15. The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 14/08/2024 and 27/08/2024 when both the Ld. AR for the assessee and Ld. DR for Revenue appeared before