M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the\nappeal of the assessee is allowed

19 of his order, which reads as under:\n\"The issue which needs consideration is that given the aforesaid\nfacts and circumstances of the case whether any interest\nneeds to be disallowed out of the interest expenditure on the\nground that the funds were diverted for non-business purposes.\nIt has been decided by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana

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

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

155 (Del) CIT Vs Nipun Auto (P) Ltd. v) 62 ITR (T) 512 (Del) ACIT Vs Shyam Indus Power Solutions (P) Ltd. 28.6 It is seen that with regard to these ten lenders, the assessee has produced the following evidences : ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 75 ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

155 (Del) CIT Vs Nipun Auto (P) Ltd. v) 62 ITR (T) 512 (Del) ACIT Vs Shyam Indus Power Solutions (P) Ltd. 28.6 It is seen that with regard to these ten lenders, the assessee has produced the following evidences : ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 75 ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

155 (Del) CIT Vs Nipun Auto (P) Ltd. v) 62 ITR (T) 512 (Del) ACIT Vs Shyam Indus Power Solutions (P) Ltd. 28.6 It is seen that with regard to these ten lenders, the assessee has produced the following evidences : ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 75 ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021

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)

19. That since the deduction is rightly claimed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, it cannot be said that there is no income escaping assessment thereby warranting the reassessment proceedings. Re(ii) No requirement to establish non recoverability of debt 20. There is no requirement to establish that the debt written off was actually irrecoverable and once

M/S INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER RELATED MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowing an amount of Rs.40,82,148, being interest on capital raised for business purpose, on the alleged ground that the same was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 10. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in charging interest under section 234B of the Act. 3. Apropos Ground

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

19 “5. We have noted that the authorities below have disallowed the expenses and the disallowance on the ground that no business activities were carried out but, in our considered view, business activities not being carried out during the year per se cannot even lead to the conclusion that the business was discontinued, leave aside the question of closure

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

19 “5. We have noted that the authorities below have disallowed the expenses and the disallowance on the ground that no business activities were carried out but, in our considered view, business activities not being carried out during the year per se cannot even lead to the conclusion that the business was discontinued, leave aside the question of closure

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

19 “5. We have noted that the authorities below have disallowed the expenses and the disallowance on the ground that no business activities were carried out but, in our considered view, business activities not being carried out during the year per se cannot even lead to the conclusion that the business was discontinued, leave aside the question of closure

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

19 “5. We have noted that the authorities below have disallowed the expenses and the disallowance on the ground that no business activities were carried out but, in our considered view, business activities not being carried out during the year per se cannot even lead to the conclusion that the business was discontinued, leave aside the question of closure

AMBER ENTERPRISES INDIA LIMITED, RAJPURA,PUNJAB vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB). in 4. That the PCIT has failed to appreciate that the AO concerned had made requisite inquiries u/s 133(6) during the course of assessment proceedings from DSIR and had also received reply in that context and since the concerned department had replied to the AO concerned, no fault can be attributed

SAHIL SINGLA,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act. 19.1 The assessee maintains that the Learned Assessing Officer has considered the Bank Passbook/Statements as books of account, then, no addition can be made u/s 69 of the Act, as all the investments were accounted for and made through the regular Bank a/c of the appellant and if the Assessing Officer assents to/abides

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance. There may be cases where the Assessing Officer undertakes a superficial and random investigation that may justify a remit, albeit the Commissioner of Income Tax must record the abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and the prejudice caused to the Revenue. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

155 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n(ii) Champaklal S. Kasat v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent. Cir. 1(3),\nAhmedabad [2017] 82 taxmann.com 243 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)\n(iii) Kay Jay Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dcit, Central Circle, Noida 2023 (8) Tmi 431:\nAssessment u/s 153A - Addition towards the cost of construction of the building -\nReference made to ld. DVO u/s 142A

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND ,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 285/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Infrastructure Development Fund, Vs. The Acit बनाम Ayojna Bhawan, Exemptions, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh Haryana, Plot No.3, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh 160018 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

disallowing accumulation u/s 11(2) of the I.T. Act. The ld. Counsel of the Assessee has filed a written submission on this issue which is reproduced as under: - “Another addition of Rs. 137,12,71,156/- was made by Ld. AO by denying exemption claimed u/s 11(2) regarding accumulation and set-apart intimated through Form No. 10. The reason