M/S KOEING SOLUTIONS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptam/S Koeing Solutions Ltd., Vs. The D.C.I.T., Plot No.22, Industrial Area, Circle 1(I), Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aabck9007D (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty on the aforesaid disallowance made of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, stating that the basis for the disallowance

M/S CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

disallowance ESI penalty. The disallowance of ESI penalty does not warrant invocation of any penalty as it does not amount

SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Us Challenging The Levy Of Penalty Both On Legal Ground As Well As On Merits Of The Case :

penalty in the present case had been levied on disallowance of freight payments amounting to Rs.3,38,43,488/- for non deduction

M/S PIONEER PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

disallowance @ 10.30% (on average cost of debts) amounting to Rs. 1,34,215/- invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Penalty

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

disallowance does not attract rigorous penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. So far as the disallowance

VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

disallowance does not attract rigorous penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. So far as the disallowance

VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Gupta

disallowance does not attract rigorous penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. So far as the disallowance

S.D.S. ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

disallowance of claim made by assessee is not sufficient for levy of penalty. In view of the above the penalty

THE AYALI KALAN CO-OP AGRICULTURE MULTI,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W III (3), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed the deduction claimed in respect of the interest earned from FDR with other commercial banks, however, while making the addition he gave benefit of the expenditure relatable to such interest income and the disallowance/addition was restricted to 65% of the interest income from other banks. The AO also initiated penalty

RAJBIR SINGH WALIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, ITA 59/CHD/2015 is partly allowed and ITA

disallowance to the extent of dividend income earned. The penalty, therefore, at most survives only on this disallowance upheld. But even

RAJBIR SINGH WALIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-I(I), CHANDIGARH

In the result, ITA 59/CHD/2015 is partly allowed and ITA

disallowance to the extent of dividend income earned. The penalty, therefore, at most survives only on this disallowance upheld. But even

SHIVA SPECIALITY YARNS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowed an expenditure of Rs.3,80,353/-. This amount represent an expenditure incurred on payment of some penalty. Similarly, he disallowed

M/S MRS. BECTOR FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the followings disallowances:- i) Disallowance of depreciation on capital receipt Rs. 2,46,000/- of subsidy

SHIV KUMAR & SONS (HUF),RAJPURA vs. ITO, RAJPURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2006-07

disallowance made by the Assessing officer does not ipso facto attract penalty provisions. The disallowance of commission has been made

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed said amounts and included\nsame in income of assessee and also imposed penalty upon it under section\n271(1)(c), penalty

THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowed said amounts and included same in income of assessee and also imposed penalty upon it under section 271(1)(c), penalty

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. M/S A.K. EXPORTS, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

disallowance of DEPB amounts / DEPB scripts purchased and utilized by the importer, imposition of penalty, disallowance of duty drawback etc. It is quite

ITO -I(1),, LUDHIANA vs. M/S A.K. EXPORTS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

disallowance of DEPB amounts / DEPB scripts purchased and utilized by the importer, imposition of penalty, disallowance of duty drawback etc. It is quite