ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

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

16,332/- . The ground of appeal No.4 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 6.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 7. Issue of disallowance of Section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

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

16,332/- . The ground of appeal No.4 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 6.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 7. Issue of disallowance of Section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

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

16,332/- . The ground of appeal No.4 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 6.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 7. Issue of disallowance of Section

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

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

16,332/- . The ground of appeal No.4 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 6.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 7. Issue of disallowance of Section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

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

16,332/- . The ground of appeal No.4 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 6.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 7. Issue of disallowance of Section

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

16 to 21 and ignoring the assessee's submissions rather made a further disallowance of Rs. 14,15,10,213/- on his own assumptions and 19 presumptions u/s14A without considering the provisions in right perspective vide para 4.7 of the Assessment order. 26.2 It is further submitted that assessee raised this issue of suo-moto disallowance in the appeal before

M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN.,,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT,, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

Bench: The Itat. That In The First Round The Itat Had Held The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, For The Purposes Of Disallowing Expenses Relating To Exempt Income, Applicable In The Facts Of The Present Cases On Noting That The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income In The Form

section 14A of the Act was attracted and the AO was only required to work out the disallowance as per the provisions of law. 16

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowed the entire amount of Rs . 2,24,305 under the said section. 4.2 Further, the AO noted multiple instances of cash purchases exceeding Rs . 20,000/- made to the same party on the same day, in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. The total amount of such purchases aggregated to Rs . 16

ITO, WARD, PALAMPUR vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KANGRA

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

Bench: Us Is Filed Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, As Amended From Time To Time. The Respondent Is A Cooperative Bank.

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 44,08,23,002/- is liable to be deleted under section 14A made on this account. We upheld the finding of Ld. CIT(A) on this ground made in para 5.5 of his order. 16

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

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

VTL INVESTMENTS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

Section 14A read with Rule 8D, and determined the disallowance as follows: Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii): Rs.0. Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) (1% of average exempt-investment): Rs.6,78,441. 3 3.5 After reducing the suo motu disallowance of Rs.2,16

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

section 144(C)(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2014- 15, respectively. Since, the issues raised in grounds of appeal for both the impugned AYs are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

section 144(C)(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2014- 15, respectively. Since, the issues raised in grounds of appeal for both the impugned AYs are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order

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)

16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. Admittedly, the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the financial year relevant to impugned assessment year 2017-18, in such a situation, the question of disallowance of any expenditure under section

ITO, W-2, BARNALA vs. THE TRUCK OPERATOR UNION, BARNALA

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

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthe Ito बनाम The Truck Operator Union, Ward-2, Barnala Dhanaula Road, Barnala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaat6497M

16. In light of aforesaid legal position, the issue which is being disputed before us has to be examined to see whether the explanation so furnished by the assessee satisfy the test so laid down to escape the rigour of section 40A(3) and whether the explanation so furnished is supported by any demonstrative verifiable evidence which provides credence

RAMJEE CONCRETES PVT.LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 205/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, The Ito, बनाम #1238.Sector 91, Ward 6(3), Mohali, Punjab Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aafcr9457E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, MANIMAJRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

16. Having considered the matter in the light of the rival contentions and the material brought on record, we find that, shorn of the undisputed facts, in “M/s Marg Ltd.” (supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that even the large disallowance proposed by the assessee himself in the computation of disallowance under Rule 8D made by him, cannot

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 9(1)(i) of the Act. Accordingly the AO held that the income of the Belgium company was taxable in India and therefore, the assessee was under obligation to deduct tax at source, which having not been deducted, the amount paid to GSK Biologicals SA ,of Rs. 16,08,70,538/- was liable to be disallowed