SH. BIPAN JAIN,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)

132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub-section (2) of section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which

SH. ASHISH JAIN,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)

132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub-section (2) of section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which

SH. ASHISH JAIN,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)

132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub-section (2) of section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which

SH. AKHIL JAIN,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)

132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub-section (2) of section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation 4(c) read with Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a case of deemed tax sought to be evaded whereupon the Assessing officer rightly levied the impugned penalty. Moreover, there was no evidence produced by the assessees to prove that the income

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

132 As on 31.03.2011- Rs. 8,70,73,62,564 Investment yielded exempt income and outstanding: -As on 31.03.2012 Rs. 1,32,09,28,068 -As on 31.03.2011 Rs. 2,34,36,86,413 Average of investments yielded exempt income =(1, 32,09,28,068+2,34,36,86,413)/2 Rs. 1,83,23,07,240 Disallowance

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

disallowed and added to income and the total income so calculated is taxed at maximum marginal rate as per section 164(2) of the Act. 5.17 As regards to the submissions of the assessee that the issue of cancellation of registration under section 12AA of the Act shall be dealt upon by the CIT(E) only

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

disallowed and added to income and the total income so calculated is taxed at maximum marginal rate as per section 164(2) of the Act. 5.17 As regards to the submissions of the assessee that the issue of cancellation of registration under section 12AA of the Act shall be dealt upon by the CIT(E) only

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

disallowed and added to income and the total income so calculated is taxed at maximum marginal rate as per section 164(2) of the Act. 5.17 As regards to the submissions of the assessee that the issue of cancellation of registration under section 12AA of the Act shall be dealt upon by the CIT(E) only

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

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

disallowed by the Assessing officer on following grounds:- 1. Considering manufacturing of Buns as Negative item under schedule eleventh of the Act. 2. Inclusion of certain assets as a part of Plant & Machinery while computing the total eligible value of Plant & Machinery for SSI Limit. 3. By Wrongly referring circular no S. O 2(E) dated 1st January 1993. Reply

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

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

disallowed by the Assessing officer on following grounds:- 1. Considering manufacturing of Buns as Negative item under schedule eleventh of the Act. 2. Inclusion of certain assets as a part of Plant & Machinery while computing the total eligible value of Plant & Machinery for SSI Limit. 3. By Wrongly referring circular no S. O 2(E) dated 1st January 1993. Reply

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

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

disallowed by the Assessing officer on following grounds:- 1. Considering manufacturing of Buns as Negative item under schedule eleventh of the Act. 2. Inclusion of certain assets as a part of Plant & Machinery while computing the total eligible value of Plant & Machinery for SSI Limit. 3. By Wrongly referring circular no S. O 2(E) dated 1st January 1993. Reply