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

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

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

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

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs.14,15,10,213/-, the calculations are given at page no. 22 & 23

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. 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. 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

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 under section 14A of the Act at\nRs.14,15,10,213/-, the calculations are given at page no. 22 & 23

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)

23. The learned AO therefore further has stated that the intention of the legislature is apparent from the explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act which indicates that the cost of the asset is to be reduced if the same is on account of capital account. 24. The Ld. AO in Para 3.10 & 3.11 has finally held

ITO, WARD, PALAMPUR vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KANGRA

In the result, appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us Is Filed Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, As Amended From Time To Time. The Respondent Is A Cooperative Bank.

10 of PCIT Vs. Era (supra) the law is settled at present that deletion of disallowance under section 14A on ground that assessee has not earned exempt income is justifiable and same is sustained. Consequently first ground of the Department fails. 13. The disallowance of Rs. 66,53,09,400/- being interest accrued and due on Non Performing Assets (NPAs

RAMJEE CONCRETES PVT.LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 205/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, The Ito, बनाम #1238.Sector 91, Ward 6(3), Mohali, Punjab Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aafcr9457E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently been

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

Section 10(23C) is only available if it is substantially financed by the Government for any previous year, thus, the exemption was disallowed. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that as per facts brought on record that the assessee is substantially financed which is evident from the grants received in the year under consideration to the tune

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

Section 10(23C) is only available if it is substantially financed by the Government for any previous year, thus, the exemption was disallowed. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that as per facts brought on record that the assessee is substantially financed which is evident from the grants received in the year under consideration to the tune

THE JABO MAJRO CO-OPERATIVE LABOUR AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD.,MALERKOTLA vs. ITO, MALERKOTLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently been

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

10 of 20 “14A. For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.” On perusal of the above, it can be seen that to apply provisions of section

TEJ PAL GUPTA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 1, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 382/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sh. Tej Pal Gupta, The Dcit, बनाम H. No. 346, Cpc, Sector 21, Bengaluru Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaupg1545N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently been