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

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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 THE NABHA PRIMARY CO-OP AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.,NABHA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , MANDI GOBINDGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of deduction equal to the assessed income u/s 80 P (2) (a) (i) of the ACT. 4) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts by not giving the effect to the application filed under Rule 46 A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, regarding production of additional evidence regarding

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

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

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, 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, 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