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

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

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground) – Transport Subsidy A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground) – Transport Subsidy A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground) – Transport Subsidy A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground) – Transport Subsidy A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground) – Transport Subsidy A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground) – Transport Subsidy A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Assessee’s appeal

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

25,91,729/-. Less: Disallowance already made by the assessee: Rs. 22,86,36,462/ Disallowance to be made: Rs. 8,39,55,267/- 41. The A.O. made various disallowance of interest under section 14A and Section 36(1) (iii). In para 4 the AO made disallowance of interest u/s 14A at Rs. 141510213/- , in para 6 made disallowance

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)

10 to section 43 (1) and reduced the cost of subsidy from the asset value for calculating depreciation. The appellant has admittedly got reimbursed the cost of investment from the Govt. as subsidy. The view taken by the assessing officer is upheld for the reasons recorded in the assessment order.” It is further recorded in para

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

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

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

10. So respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted. ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 13 8. Since the facts involved in the present case are identical to the facts involved in the case of Raja

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

10. As regards administrative expenses, it is a fact on record that the assessee himself had disallowed an amount of Rs.2,73,13,827/- on account of expenses incurred for earning tax free income and the Assessing Officer has nowhere recorded a finding as to why the disallowance so made by the assessee is not correct. Reliance is placed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, MANIMAJRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the

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

25,000/- despite the fact that assessee has earned the exempt income of Rs. 38,359/- during the year under consideration. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the above action of the learned CIT(A), ITD is contrary to the settled position of law that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income

DCIT, C-1 (EXPEMTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST HOSHIARPUR, HOSHIARPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly be suggested that the Government of Punjab formed the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category "objects of general public utility". 75. Section 28(2)(iii) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 permits

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST KARTARPUR, KARTARPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of exemption. 74. It cannot possibly be suggested that the Government of Punjab formed the trusts under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 because it wanted to carry on the business as colonizers or developers under the mask of the category "objects of general public utility". 75. Section 28(2)(iii) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 permits