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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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 the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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 the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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 the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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 the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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 the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowance was made. Since this assessment order under section 147 dt. 24/03/2023 was available; it became part of record and by virtue of Section 263(1)(b) the word “record” [shall include and shall be deemed always to have included) all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the PCIT. Since this

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 142(2A) for the purpose of conducting the audit. 4 That he further not justified to uphold the disallowance

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 142(2A) for the purpose of conducting the audit. 4 That he further not justified to uphold the disallowance

M/S SUNDER MAL SAT PAL,MUKATSAR vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 142(2A) for the purpose of conducting the audit. 4 That he further not justified to uphold the disallowance

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)

section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

142(1) was issued on 05.02.2014. The assessee was represented by its authorized representative, Chartered Accountant Mr. Pankaj Garg, who attended the proceedings and furnished the required details and books of account for verification. 4.1 The AO observed that the assessee had paid interest amounting to Rs.20,079/- to Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and Rs.2,04,226/- to HDB Financial

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEV. CORP. LTD., PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowance under Section 36(l)(iii) of t h e Income Tax Act, 1961 is squarely covered in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Industries Limited, reported as [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC) wherein the issue has been held to be a pure question of fact

M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEV. CORP. LTD.,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed in above terms

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) On Various Grounds, Including Challenging The Reference Made By The Ao To Special Audit. The Ld.Cit(A)

142(2A) of the Act : (i) The nature of accounts (ii) Complexity of accounts and (iii) Interest of the Revenue. The formation of opinion of the AO must be on the premise that while exercising his power regard must be had to the factors enumerated therein. The use of the word 'and’ shows that it is conjunctive and not disjunctive

ARVINDER PAUL JIT SINGH GILL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance

M/S BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (CEN.)-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance

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

In the result, we upheld the

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

142(1) were issued, calling for necessary information documentation. Thereafter the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act vide order dt. 31/12/2023 wherein the reassessed income was determined at Rs. 2,54,79,04,707/- as against original assessed income of Rs. 1,56,95,34,890/-. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal

M/S BRONZE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Bronze Logistics P.Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 863 Industrial Area-A, Circle Vii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. : Aabcb9505H

SECTION 142(2A)DIRECTING a SPECIAL AUDIT should be that the —ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT the ACCOUNTS WERE COMPLEX AND SPECIAL AUDIT WAS NECESSARY. It was his submission that in the facts of the said decision, the Court found that the reasons for special audit were not mentioned. In the facts of the present case, it was submitted

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PANCHKULA, HARYANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowed.\n9. Section 143(1) (a) of the Act provides that, where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142