HARISH GANDHI,KAITHAL, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAITHAL, KAITHAL, HARYANA

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

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

disallowance made by the AO was confirmed stating that the AO has applied the correct position of law that a belated return cannot be revised. It was further held by the Ld. CIT(A) that even if the revised return of income was to be treated as valid return, since the income (remuneration & interest from the firm) has been claimed

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

9. Separate balance sheets of both these units along with relevant annexures were filed before AO. Photocopies of same are enclosed at Pages 7 to 22 It is clearly evident from these balance sheets that both Main units as well as CR Division of company have raised loans independently to meet their long term und working capital requirements & accordingly

M/S AMIT ENGINEERS,BADDI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 299/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 I) M/S Amit Engineers, The Dcit बनाम Villagae Judi Kalan, Circle, Parwanoo, H.P. Baddi, District, Solan & Ii) Himachal Pradesh - 173205 Adit, Cpc, Banglore "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakfa5620L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

9 income under section 139(1), the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 17. We further

THE JABO MAJRO CO-OPERATIVE LABOUR AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD.,MALERKOTLA vs. ITO, MALERKOTLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

139(1) of the Act, in both the years under consideration prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5, are deleted. 12. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed.” 10. So respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the disallowances sustained

M/S J.K.INTERNATIONAL,KANGRA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, PALAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 9,36,495/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ITO , WARD -1,, SANGRUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9

SH. YOGINDER PAL SINGH GREWAL,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-11(3)PUNE/ CURRENT JURISDICTIONA ASSESSING OFFICER ITO-WARD-5, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench

SH. YOGINDER PAL SINGH GREWAL,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-11(3)PUNE/ CURRENT JURISDICTIONA ASSESSING OFFICER ITO-WARD-5, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench

SHRI YOGESH SINGLA,LUDHIANA vs. ADIT,CPC/ ITO-WARD-5(4), LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench

SH. KULWARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-11(3) PUNE/ CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICERITO-WARD-4, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench

HARSORIA HOSPITALITY,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr & He Also Ignored The Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision In Favour Of Appellant. 2. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals) Has Wrongly Upheld The Disallowance Of Rs 706790/- Made By Cpc Under Section 143(1) On Debatable Issue. 3. That The Assessee Craves Of Permission To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal With Approval Of The Hon'Ble Bench.

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench

SHRI GURMEET PANDHER,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-2, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Itr & He Also Ignored The Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision In Favour Of Appellant. 2. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals) Has Wrongly Upheld The Disallowance Of Rs 1275040/- Made By Cpc Under Section 143(1) On Debatable Issue. 3. That The Assessee Craves Of Permission To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Grounds Of Appeal With Approval Of The Hon'Ble Bench.

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench

M/S CONTINENTAL ENGINEERING & POWER PVT.LTD.,MOHALI vs. ADIT,CPC/ACIT,CIRCLE-6(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench

SMT. MANJU JINDAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred

SMT. MANJU JINDAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred

SMT. MANJU JINDAL,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 348 To 350/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 Smt. Manju Jindal, The Cpc, बनाम 390-A, Industrial Area-1, Banglore Ludhiana -141003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acvpj3723G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred

SH. SUKHDEV SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO WARD 6 (1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench

VTC TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT,CPC/JCITOSD,CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench