M/S ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 821/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, Circle-1 Charitable Trust, बनाम (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L

d) of the Act necessitates presence of specific direction to that effect. Corpus fund as is commonly understood is a non diminishable fund that cannot be utilized in any other way except it adding to the capabilities of the trust to earn income that would go on to augment the redemption of the charitable functions. Further, throughout the appellate proceedings

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

131, the same are clearly incriminating in nature. Further he relied on the findings of the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). It was accordingly submitted that there is no basis in the contentions so advanced by the Ld. AR that no incriminating material has been found and seized during the course of search in the case

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The present two appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 22.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2014- 15 and 2015-16 respectively. ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The present two appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 22.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2014- 15 and 2015-16 respectively. ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

131 to the effect that in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer as to why the calculation made by the assessee is not correct , the disallowance made by him on account of administrative expenses under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is not as per law. In view of the above disallowance made

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

D B (India) Securities Ltd: 318 ITR 26 (Del) - CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd: 320 ITR 178 (Del) - CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia: 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) - CIT v. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd.: 235 Taxman 451 (Bom.) - Angel Capital and Debt Market Ltd. v. ACIT: 118 TTJ 351 (Mum ITAT) - Angel Commodities Broking (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

disallowance in the hands of various Group concerns. Thereafter, another search and seizure operation on 21/02/2014 was initiated by the Department at the business premises alongwith residential / business premises of the Directors and other related persons of BPSL. 6.3 The AO also observed that various new evidences in the form of soft as well as hard data including statements

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

disallowance in the hands of various Group concerns. Thereafter, another search and seizure operation on 21/02/2014 was initiated by the Department at the business premises alongwith residential / business premises of the Directors and other related persons of BPSL. 6.3 The AO also observed that various new evidences in the form of soft as well as hard data including statements

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

disallowance in the hands of various Group concerns. Thereafter, another search and seizure operation on 21/02/2014 was initiated by the Department at the business premises alongwith residential / business premises of the Directors and other related persons of BPSL. 6.3 The AO also observed that various new evidences in the form of soft as well as hard data including statements

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

disallowance in the hands of various Group concerns. Thereafter, another search and seizure operation on 21/02/2014 was initiated by the Department at the business premises alongwith residential / business premises of the Directors and other related persons of BPSL. 6.3 The AO also observed that various new evidences in the form of soft as well as hard data including statements

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

disallowance in the hands of various Group concerns. Thereafter, another search and seizure operation on 21/02/2014 was initiated by the Department at the business premises alongwith residential / business premises of the Directors and other related persons of BPSL. 6.3 The AO also observed that various new evidences in the form of soft as well as hard data including statements

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

disallowance in the hands of various Group concerns. Thereafter, another search and seizure operation on 21/02/2014 was initiated by the Department at the business premises alongwith residential / business premises of the Directors and other related persons of BPSL. 6.3 The AO also observed that various new evidences in the form of soft as well as hard data including statements

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

131 of the Act and it was found that these payments were not genuine and reasonable and then it was asked that the payments made to specific persons under section13(3) of the Act towards salary were excessive and not reasonable and were in violation of provisions of section13(1)(c) of the Act. So, as to why those payments

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

131 of the Act and it was found that these payments were not genuine and reasonable and then it was asked that the payments made to specific persons under section13(3) of the Act towards salary were excessive and not reasonable and were in violation of provisions of section13(1)(c) of the Act. So, as to why those payments

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

131 of the Act and it was found that these payments were not genuine and reasonable and then it was asked that the payments made to specific persons under section13(3) of the Act towards salary were excessive and not reasonable and were in violation of provisions of section13(1)(c) of the Act. So, as to why those payments

M/S METALMAN AUTO PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Metalman Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Addl.C.I.T., E-127, Phase-V, Range-1, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabcm5441M (Appellant) (Respondent)

1)(iii) of the Act. The disallowance so made amounting to Rs.35,131/- is, therefore, directed to be deleted. Ground No.1(a) raised by the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No.1(b) reads as under: “b) By arbitrarily and wrongly confirmed the disallowance of expenses Rs.3,98,008/- u/s 14A of the Income tax Act, 1961.” 10. The facts relating

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

1,14,791 additional disallowance 2,11,270) 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in his order passed in assessment year 2006-07, pointing out that his finding for the subsequent years also was identically worded. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) at paras

M/S CITY BEAUTIFUL HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. PR. CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 554/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S City Beautiful Hotels & Pcit-2, बनाम Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Sco 471-471, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

131 and calling for the investor's bank statement. Therefore, as per the AR, revisionary powers u/s 263 could not be invoked. 3.1.2 The assessee, in its reply dated 03.02.2017, has also relied on the following judgments:- i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). ii) CIT Vs. Max India

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act. 10.1 Be that as it may, be it noted that above consequential order was passed while the present appeal was pending. The part of the order under section 263 wherein the aforesaid ground is considered / taken cognizance still survives for us. The tribunal by virtue of section 253(1