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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

46), the Appellant's receipts are\nnot liable to tax. Its activities are inherently charitable, and the cess received\nforms part of corpus funds dedicated to public welfare. Accordingly, no part of\nits income can be brought to tax under the Act.\n\n3 Whether reassessment on account of revision under section 263 is bad in law\nand liable

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

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

46), the Appellant's receipts are\nnot liable to tax. Its activities are inherently charitable, and the cess received\nforms part of corpus funds dedicated to public welfare. Accordingly, no part of\nits income can be brought to tax under the Act.\n\n3 Whether reassessment on account of revision under section 263 is bad in law\nand liable

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

46,685/-which on the facts of the case is allowable as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above. In view of the above, it is therefore prayed that the interest relating to advance to these parties may not be disallowed. To this extent the disallowance made in the computation of taxable income may be rectified

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

10,213/- made by the A.O. by following the\nearlier orders of the ITAT in assessee's own case. But the Ld. CIT(A) has\nnot given any directions to delete the suo-moto disallowance of Rs.\n1,02,82,974/- made under rule 8D(2)(ii) as per submissions made by\nappellant before him.\n35.1 Since we have upheld

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)

46,952/- towards PF/ESI belatedly, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. 4.1 It was further submitted that the assessee appreciates that the legal position has changed now after the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND ,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 285/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Infrastructure Development Fund, Vs. The Acit बनाम Ayojna Bhawan, Exemptions, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh Haryana, Plot No.3, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh 160018 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

46) after 01.04.2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that it is set up for a charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act." 8. Although this issue is covered against the Assessee but after Tribunal’s order on the same issue

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

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)

46,72,893 – 1,13,73,255 = 1,32,99,638/- = 2,52,41,328 Total 2.15 The Ld. AO in para 5.5 of the assessment order dt. 30/12/2018 has finally held as under basis aforesaid:- “Therefore in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. the common expenses allocated between the exempt and non-emept units have been

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)

46,72,893 – 1,13,73,255 = 1,32,99,638/- = 2,52,41,328 Total 2.15 The Ld. AO in para 5.5 of the assessment order dt. 30/12/2018 has finally held as under basis aforesaid:- “Therefore in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. the common expenses allocated between the exempt and non-emept units have been

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)

46,72,893 – 1,13,73,255 = 1,32,99,638/- = 2,52,41,328 Total 2.15 The Ld. AO in para 5.5 of the assessment order dt. 30/12/2018 has finally held as under basis aforesaid:- “Therefore in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. the common expenses allocated between the exempt and non-emept units have been

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)

46,72,893 – 1,13,73,255 = 1,32,99,638/- = 2,52,41,328 Total 2.15 The Ld. AO in para 5.5 of the assessment order dt. 30/12/2018 has finally held as under basis aforesaid:- “Therefore in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. the common expenses allocated between the exempt and non-emept units have been

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, 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)

46,72,893 – 1,13,73,255 = 1,32,99,638/- = 2,52,41,328 Total 2.15 The Ld. AO in para 5.5 of the assessment order dt. 30/12/2018 has finally held as under basis aforesaid:- “Therefore in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. the common expenses allocated between the exempt and non-emept units have been

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)

46,72,893 – 1,13,73,255 = 1,32,99,638/- = 2,52,41,328 Total 2.15 The Ld. AO in para 5.5 of the assessment order dt. 30/12/2018 has finally held as under basis aforesaid:- “Therefore in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. the common expenses allocated between the exempt and non-emept units have been

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)

46,72,893 – 1,13,73,255 = 1,32,99,638/- = 2,52,41,328 Total 2.15 The Ld. AO in para 5.5 of the assessment order dt. 30/12/2018 has finally held as under basis aforesaid:- “Therefore in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. the common expenses allocated between the exempt and non-emept units have been

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)

46,72,893 – 1,13,73,255 = 1,32,99,638/- = 2,52,41,328 Total 2.15 The Ld. AO in para 5.5 of the assessment order dt. 30/12/2018 has finally held as under basis aforesaid:- “Therefore in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. the common expenses allocated between the exempt and non-emept units have been

ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. M/S JAMNA AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD., YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

Section 80IA(10) having undisputedly not been carried out in the present case, the addition made in the hands of the assessee company is unsustainable for this reason alone and the ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance on this score itself. 17.2 Then, the AO had made the disallowance of Rs.10.95 Cr by holding that the assessee

ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. M/S JAMNA AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD., YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

Section 80IA(10) having undisputedly not been carried out in the present case, the addition made in the hands of the assessee company is unsustainable for this reason alone and the ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance on this score itself. 17.2 Then, the AO had made the disallowance of Rs.10.95 Cr by holding that the assessee

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

Bench: Final Hearing.

Section 132of the Income Tax Act. His case was handled by the DCIT, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh. A notice was sent to him on 10/01/2013, asking him to file his tax return. He filed it on 31/07/2013, showing an income of Rs. 4,46,680 from salary and other sources. During the assessment, two main issues came up for hearing

DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

46,98,55,000 2 Investment in DHBVNL 4,37,27,35,000 3 Investment in HPGCL 1,000 193-Chd-2023 – Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula 4 4 Investment against 9,66,20,000 contingency reserves 5 Other Investments 93,80,000 TOTAL 9,94,85,91,000 1.2 In the matter, it is submitted that investments