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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt on account of voluntary retirement, (ii) appellant was not retrenched

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)

disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt on account of voluntary retirement, (ii) appellant was not retrenched

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

disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of ITA No. 519-Chd-2024 Dayal Singh, Distt. Ambala , 19 employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt

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)

disallowed claim of the appellant made u/s 10(10B) of the Act on following findings that (1) sum received by the appellant on account of VRSNSS was not of the nature of compensation on termination of employment or compensation on closure of industry ie HMTL-TD. This amount is receipt on account of voluntary retirement, (ii) appellant was not retrenched

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

20%\nof the total receipts as per provisions of section\n2(15), the tax exemption was not allowable. The\nfacts being the same, the AO should have denied the\nassessee the benefit of accumulation for the A.Y.\n2015-16 also which he had failed to do so.\nSince the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of\nIncome tax (Exemption) is based

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

20%\nof the total receipts as per provisions of section\n2(15), the tax exemption was not allowable. The\nfacts being the same, the AO should have denied the\nassessee the benefit of accumulation for the A.Y.\n2015-16 also which he had failed to do so.\nSince the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of\nIncome tax (Exemption) is based

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

20%\nof the total receipts as per provisions of section\n2(15), the tax exemption was not allowable. The\nfacts being the same, the AO should have denied the\nassessee the benefit of accumulation for the A.Y.\n2015-16 also which he had failed to do so.\nSince the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of\nIncome tax (Exemption) is based

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

20%\nof the total receipts as per provisions of section\n2(15), the tax exemption was not allowable. The\nfacts being the same, the AO should have denied the\nassessee the benefit of accumulation for the A.Y.\n2015-16 also which he had failed to do so.\nSince the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of\nIncome tax (Exemption) is based

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

20. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT (A) and furnished the written submissions which had been incorporated in paras 7.1 of the impugned order. 20.1 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee, deleted the disallowances made by the A.O. under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by following the earlier

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowed." 20. The assessee vide letter dt. 20/12/2016 replied the aforesaid letter dt. NIL para 11 supra. 21. The Ld. AO in Para 3.8 of assessment order has stated as under: 3.8 At last when cornered the counsel of the assessee vide letter dated 23.12.2016 gives the working of subsidy claimed and subsidy received as under: S.No. Assets Dep rate

M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN.,,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT,, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

Bench: The Itat. That In The First Round The Itat Had Held The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, For The Purposes Of Disallowing Expenses Relating To Exempt Income, Applicable In The Facts Of The Present Cases On Noting That The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income In The Form

section 14A of the Act and as per law. That subsequently the AO, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, had worked out the disallowance by applying the mathematical formula provided in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for the said purpose, making disallowance of expenses for the impugned assessment years as under: Asstt. Year Disallowance

M/S PENTA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

In the result, ITA 635/CHD/2017 is allowed and ITA 637/CHD/2017

Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal had rightly adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee-respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant revenue has not been able to show any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court.” 10

M/S PENTA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT, PATIALA

In the result, ITA 635/CHD/2017 is allowed and ITA 637/CHD/2017

Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal had rightly adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee-respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant revenue has not been able to show any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court.” 10

ITO, WARD (E), CHANDIGARH vs. SANT BABA SUNDER SINGH, BARNALA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowed by the AO for the reason that the receipt of the assessee trust exceeded Rs. 1 Crores. Before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee had not raised this ground of appeal at all and therefore this issue been dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the same the entire facts relating to the issue are not before

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the assessee. 3. Brief facts relating to the issue as culled out from the order of CIT(A) are that the assessee, M/s Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (hereinafter referred to as ‘CLTA’) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The assessee is also registered as a charitable entity vide order dated

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

20,000/- made to the same party on the same day, in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. The total amount of such purchases aggregated to Rs . 16,33,037/-. No satisfactory explanation for seeking the deduction and falling under the exception mentioned in Rule 6DD was provided by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had disallowed

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

20,496/- {Rs.3,27,74,176/- (-) Rs. 1,32,53,680/-} vide order under section 154 of the Act dated 14.02.2017] made by the Assessing Officer in this case on account of disallowance of expenses by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act on the ground that the assessee company had made investment in shares/mutual funds, the income from

PUNJAB AGRICULTUAL UNIVERSITY,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshi, Judical Member आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 661/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Punjab Agriculture University, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम Thapar Hall, Income Tax (Exemptions), Ferozepur Road, Chandigarh Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaabp0216H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 492/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Punjab Agriculture University, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Thapar Hall, बनाम Income Tax (Exemptions), Ferozepur Road, Chandigarh Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaabp0216H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12 .2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The Appeal In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Order

disallowance, since the deduction for this Assessment Year 2019- 20 was claimed under wrong sub clause of Section 10(23C). There