THE MULLANPUR GARIBDAS CO-OP MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY,MULLANPUR vs. PR. CIT-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed deduction under section 80P on the interest income earned from the FDs maintained in the banks. It was stated that however, the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 80P on this interest income. It was stated that the issue had not been examined by the AO, nor the assessee had offered any detail regarding claiming deduction

THE MULLANPUR GARIBDAS CO-OP MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR. CIT-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed deduction under section 80P on the interest income earned from the FDs maintained in the banks. It was stated that however, the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 80P on this interest income. It was stated that the issue had not been examined by the AO, nor the assessee had offered any detail regarding claiming deduction

NIRMALA RANI L/H OF SH. AZAD SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -1, , PANCHKULA

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Of.

Section 10(10B) of the IT Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble High court that the yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category

SATINDER PAUL THROUGH L/H NEELAM SAINI,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

Section 10(10B) of the IT Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble High court that the yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category

NARESH KUMAR KAMBOJ,ZIRAKPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

Section 10(10B) of the IT Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble High court that the yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category

SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

Section 10(10B) of the IT Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble High court that the yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category

DAYAL SINGH,VILL FATEHPUR PO BUREWALA vs. ITO WARD-1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

Section 10(10B) of the IT Act. It was further held by the Hon’ble High court that the yardstick applicable to workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be made applicable to the officers. Therefore, under normal circumstances whatever reasoning assigned by this Court in the preceding paragraphs would apply to the employees in the workmen category

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

10, utilization of income, and treatment of corpus fund\n3.1.2 The Appellant furnished detailed replies along with documentary evidence which\nwere duly examined. After considering these submissions and after granting\npersonal hearing, the Learned AO consciously accepted the returned income and\npassed the order under section 143(3) dated 27.09.2017. The Learned AO's\nconclusion that \"no adverse inference

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

10, utilization of income, and treatment of corpus fund\n3.1.2 The Appellant furnished detailed replies along with documentary evidence which\nwere duly examined. After considering these submissions and after granting\npersonal hearing, the Learned AO consciously accepted the returned income and\npassed the order under section 143(3) dated 27.09.2017. The Learned AO's\nconclusion that \"no adverse inference

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

10, utilization of income, and treatment of corpus fund\n\n3.1.2 The Appellant furnished detailed replies along with documentary evidence which\nwere duly examined. After considering these submissions and after granting\npersonal hearing, the Learned AO consciously accepted the returned income and\npassed the order under Section 143(3) dated 27.09.2017. The Learned AO's\n\nconclusion that \"no adverse

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

10, utilization of income, and treatment of corpus fund\n\n3.1.2 The Appellant furnished detailed replies along with documentary evidence which\nwere duly examined. After considering these submissions and after granting\npersonal hearing, the Learned AO consciously accepted the returned income and\npassed the order under section 143(3) dated 27.09.2017. The Learned AO's\n31\n\nconclusion that

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

10,213/-by the Ld. CIT(A) made by the AO u/s 14A of the IT Act. 29. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income whereby it suo-moto considered a disallowance of Rs. 1,02,82,974/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rs. 2,94,48,717/- under Rule 8D(2

THE JAGADHRI CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD.,JAGADHRI vs. THE PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10. It was further submitted that in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (Supra), the matter pertains to claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and not claim of deduction 80P(2)(d) and that too, in respect of interest income on amount invested not with

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No.160, 161 & 162/ Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Jyoti Co-operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Sirmour, Solan, HP-173025 स्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: AAABT1453G अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO H.P Ward-Nahan, Sirmour प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet K

10 11. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In case of CIT Vs. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (supra), the issue for consideration before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest on reserve funds is attributable

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

10 11. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In case of CIT Vs. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (supra), the issue for consideration before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest on reserve funds is attributable

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

10 11. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In case of CIT Vs. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (supra), the issue for consideration before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest on reserve funds is attributable

THE AMBALA CO-OP MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD,AMBALA vs. ITO WARD-1 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

disallowance of the deduction claimed which on appeal has been allowed by the Tribunal and thereafter, the question of law which was proposed by the Revenue for the opinion of the Hon’ble High Court was “whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing deduction under section 80P(2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

2) and 11(5) of the Act. Here again the AO found that the assessee had not filed Form no. 10 as required by Sub-section 5 of Section 11 of the Act. The assessee thus having failed to follow the prescribed procedure, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,94,11,605/-. 4. The assessee, feeling aggrieved, challenged both