DCIT vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

disallowance of carry forward of excess expenditure over its income for the earlier year to be adjusted in the subsequent year. 5. The learned CIT(A) by a common order dated 31.07.2014 has refused to accept the ground challenging the reopening and the issue of carry forward of excess expenditure over the income in the subsequent year. The learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

disallowance of carry forward of excess expenditure over its income for the earlier year to be adjusted in the subsequent year. 5. The learned CIT(A) by a common order dated 31.07.2014 has refused to accept the ground challenging the reopening and the issue of carry forward of excess expenditure over the income in the subsequent year. The learned

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

disallowance of carry forward of excess expenditure over its income for the earlier year to be adjusted in the subsequent year. 5. The learned CIT(A) by a common order dated 31.07.2014 has refused to accept the ground challenging the reopening and the issue of carry forward of excess expenditure over the income in the subsequent year. The learned

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

disallowance of carry forward of excess expenditure over its income for the earlier year to be adjusted in the subsequent year. 5. The learned CIT(A) by a common order dated 31.07.2014 has refused to accept the ground challenging the reopening and the issue of carry forward of excess expenditure over the income in the subsequent year. The learned

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

disallowance relating to the amount of interest on arrears of sales-Tax the said issue was highly debatable and it ceased to be primafacie inadmissible and therefore section 143(1)(a) would not be applicable.\n10. Now, as stated hereinabove, at the time when the assessee submitted the return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 declaring 'Nil' income

RIDE LINK AUTO,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 7 (1), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance shall be made for employers’ share of contribution which is deposited before 'due date' of filing of return of Income. However, it further clarifies that this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.6 Another argument of the Ld.DR

VIDYADHAR TIWARI,BADDI vs. ITO, , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance shall be made for employers’ share of contribution which is deposited before 'due date' of filing of return of Income. However, it further clarifies that this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.6 Another argument of the Ld.DR

PARMINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance shall be made for employers’ share of contribution which is deposited before 'due date' of filing of return of Income. However, it further clarifies that this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.6 Another argument of the Ld.DR

SH. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH,BADDI vs. ITO , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance shall be made for employers’ share of contribution which is deposited before 'due date' of filing of return of Income. However, it further clarifies that this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.6 Another argument of the Ld.DR

METALMAN AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -1,, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance shall be made for employers’ share of contribution which is deposited before 'due date' of filing of return of Income. However, it further clarifies that this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.6 Another argument of the Ld.DR

TEGSONS INDIA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance shall be made for employers’ share of contribution which is deposited before 'due date' of filing of return of Income. However, it further clarifies that this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.6 Another argument of the Ld.DR

SANDEEP GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance shall be made for employers’ share of contribution which is deposited before 'due date' of filing of return of Income. However, it further clarifies that this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.6 Another argument of the Ld.DR

SH. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH,BADDI vs. ITO , BADDI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance shall be made for employers’ share of contribution which is deposited before 'due date' of filing of return of Income. However, it further clarifies that this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.6 Another argument of the Ld.DR

ITO, WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA vs. SH. SITA RAM SINGLA, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 18/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Central Circle, Smt. Madhubala बनाम Patiala W/O Sh. Krishan Gopal, Ward No.1, Lehargaga, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anjpb7890D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance shall be made for employers’ share of contribution which is deposited before 'due date' of filing of return of Income. However, it further clarifies that this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.6 Another argument of the Ld.DR

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

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed the foreign travel expenses which clearly form part of the operating expenses and the cost base and on which the assessee has reported the revenues after considering the mark up of 16.60%. Such an action on part of the AO is clearly in breach of letter and spirit of the APA which has been entered into by CBDT

MADHAV KRG LTD,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed in the previous year on provisions basis. Regarding non mentioning of the same in the return of income, it was submitted that the same has been inadvertently omitted to be shown in other information. It was submitted that the said response was not considered by CPC, Bangalore and intimation dt. 04/11/2019 under section 143(1) was issued after making

ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD., GURGAON

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1355/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) Dcit-1(1)(1) M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd. R.N.579A, 5Th Floor (Legal Successor Of M/S Glaxosmithkline बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Consumer Healthcare Ltd.) Vs. Mumbai – 400020 Unilever House, B.D. Swant Marg, Chakala Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-1004-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rohit Jain (Advocate) & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) A/W Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 1997-98 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh Dated 02-08-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act On 31-03-2017. The Revenue Has Filed Revised Form No.36 On 10-09-2024 Which Is On Record. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 1997-98 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh dated 02-08-2018 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 31-03-2017. The revenue has filed revised Form No.36

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

In the result, the impugned order is sustained and appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the order under section 143(3) on the basis of observations of the accountant in his report in Form 3CD, has been deposited before due date of filing of ITR u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 merely on the basis of a bald certificate issued by a C.A. (v) The appellant craves