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

ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return’ 8. Sub-section (1) of section 143

THE CHAPLAH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LTD,VPO CHOULI vs. LD. DCIT , CPC, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Dt 25.04.2023 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

1) of the Act and therefore, the claim made by the assessee is apparently not admissible in terms of provisions of section 80AC(ii) of the Act and thus was rightly disallowed by the A.O. CPC in the order passed u/s 143

THE LANJANI CO-OPERATIVE AGRI SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,KANGRA vs. DCIT,CPC/ITO-WARD-, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of 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: — (i)any arithmetical error in the return; [***] (ii) an incorrect claim

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

143(1) of the Act. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. The A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs.9,19,28,102/- and LTCG taxable Rs. 7,59,39,798/- and Rs.6,06,39,256/- which were claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Act and that

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/ or relevant

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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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 the same under section 43B of the Act, the said question was a debatable question or not, and whether the assessing officer was justified in adjusting, prima facie, and adding the aforesaid amount or not.\n8. Section 143(1)(a) of the Act reads as under :\n'143. Assessment^ 1) (a) Where a return has been made under section

THE SURARWAN GAGWAN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED ,SURARWAN vs. LD. DCIT, CPC, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 46/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Surarwan Gagwan Co- Vs. The Ito, Operative Agriculture Service बनाम Ward, Society Limited, Nurpur (Palampur ) Surarwan Indora H.P. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaact8925A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Virtual Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishan Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Sh Aditya Sood, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024

143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of 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: — (i ) any arithmetical error in the return; [***] (ii) an incorrect claim

THE BALOL CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,KANGRA vs. ITO, WARD, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of 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: — (i)any arithmetical error in the return; [***] (ii) an incorrect claim

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)

Disallowance of rs. 62,15,000/- in terms of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Basis section 147 the Department / Revenue contends that a mere perusal of Section 147 reveal that there is no reference or mention explicity or impliedly to a new tangible information as claimed by the assessee to the effect that there must

THE RUHRU CO-OPERATIVE AGRI SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,KANGRA vs. ITO WARD, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— ITA 580 /CHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 Page 7 of 9 (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,09,560/-. 4. Subsequently, the assessment records were called for and examined by the Ld. PCIT, Panchkula and a show cause under section 263 dt. 12/12/2023 was issued by the Ld. PCIT and the contents thereof read as under: “Perusal of assessment record reveals that you had sold