SH. SOHAN LAL,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -3, PANCHKULA

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

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

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

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

Section 36(1) (iii). In para 4 the AO made disallowance of interest\nu/s 14A at Rs. 141510213/-, in para 6 made disallowance of interest u/s\n36(1)(iii) at Rs. 40,22,065/- on account of outstanding debit balances\nfrom M/s Hero Exports Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hero Motors Ltd. and further in\npara 7 made disallowance

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)

10-13. The assessee society stated that deduction was claimed under section 80P(2)(d). It was stated that the society is a cooperative society and it had invested an amount of Rs.72 lakh with the Central Cooperative Bank Mullanpur and an amount of Rs. 9,35,92,380/- with ITA 515/CHD/2017 ITA 569/CHD/2018 & ITA 645/CHD/2019 17 the Central Cooperative

THE MULLANPUR GARIBDAS CO-OP MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

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

10-13. The assessee society stated that deduction was claimed under section 80P(2)(d). It was stated that the society is a cooperative society and it had invested an amount of Rs.72 lakh with the Central Cooperative Bank Mullanpur and an amount of Rs. 9,35,92,380/- with ITA 515/CHD/2017 ITA 569/CHD/2018 & ITA 645/CHD/2019 17 the Central Cooperative

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)

10-13. The assessee society stated that deduction was claimed under section 80P(2)(d). It was stated that the society is a cooperative society and it had invested an amount of Rs.72 lakh with the Central Cooperative Bank Mullanpur and an amount of Rs. 9,35,92,380/- with ITA 515/CHD/2017 ITA 569/CHD/2018 & ITA 645/CHD/2019 17 the Central Cooperative

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)

iii) Pursuant to interim orders dated 22.12.2015, the amounts deducted towards income tax was directed to be kept in deposit to the credit of the Writ Petition in Indian Bank, High Court Branch. In the light of the finding rendered supra holding ITA 136/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 10 that no income tax is recoverable from the severance package, the amount

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

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 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 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

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)

2) the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income has to be determined in accordance with Rule 8D read with section 14A. 4.11 Also, in light of Section 14A(3), which says that disallowance needs to be calculated as per Rule 8D even if the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred

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)

2) the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income has to be determined in accordance with Rule 8D read with section 14A. 4.11 Also, in light of Section 14A(3), which says that disallowance needs to be calculated as per Rule 8D even if the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred

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)

2) the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income has to be determined in accordance with Rule 8D read with section 14A. 4.11 Also, in light of Section 14A(3), which says that disallowance needs to be calculated as per Rule 8D even if the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred

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)

2) the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income has to be determined in accordance with Rule 8D read with section 14A. 4.11 Also, in light of Section 14A(3), which says that disallowance needs to be calculated as per Rule 8D even if the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred

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)

2) the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income has to be determined in accordance with Rule 8D read with section 14A. 4.11 Also, in light of Section 14A(3), which says that disallowance needs to be calculated as per Rule 8D even if the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred