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 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

disallowance of Rs. 10,88,438/-. The grounds\nraised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.\n15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.\"\nc) The Hon'ble Pune ITAT in the case of Kumar Housing Corporation (P)\nLtd vs. ITO (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 259 (Pune - Trib.) also held as\nunder:\n\"20. Since the assessee

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

PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,LUDHIANA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), 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

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

M/S BARNALA BUILDERS AND CONSULTANT,ZIRAKPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT (CEN)-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return’. The words “or increase in income” in the above provision were inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f

M/S BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (CEN.)-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return’. The words “or increase in income” in the above provision were inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f

BABA HIRA SINGH BHATTAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,LEHRAGAGA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

20. On merits, it is a fact that accepted on record that the assessee was approved u/s 10(23C)(vi) and that it had claimed exemption under the said provision. It was, accordingly, due to an inadvertent error that the provision was mentioned as Section 10(23C)(iiiab). The exemption claimed u/s 10(23C)(vi) was pursuant to the approval

ARVINDER PAUL JIT SINGH GILL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return’. The words “or increase in income” in the above provision were inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f