M/S METALMAN AUTO PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Metalman Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Addl.C.I.T., E-127, Phase-V, Range-1, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabcm5441M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14A were found applicable in the facts of the case and, therefore, the disallowance was rightly worked out by invoking the machinery provisions given in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) at para 3.3 of the order is as under: “3.3 Having considered the submissions made in this regard, I find

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

disallowed as it seems that you are furnishing inaccurate particulars. Please also furnish whether you have claimed such exemption u/s 80-lA in the previous year also or not? 12. Further at para 12 of Form No.10CCB, you have shown sales tax registration No. in which it has ascertained that you were got registered with sales tax on 09.07.2009. Please

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

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

disallowed. The following decisions are also to the same effect : i) M/s Beauty Tex ITA 508/JP/2016 ii) Shri Heera Lal Chuni Lal Jain V ITO, order dated 01.01.2016, passed in ITA No.4547/Mum/2014 iii) M/s Imperial Imp & Exp V ITO, order dated 18.03.2016, passed in ITA No. 5427/Mum/2015 iv) ITO V Shri Sanjay V Dhruv, order dated

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

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

disallowed. The following decisions are also to the same effect : i) M/s Beauty Tex ITA 508/JP/2016 ii) Shri Heera Lal Chuni Lal Jain V ITO, order dated 01.01.2016, passed in ITA No.4547/Mum/2014 iii) M/s Imperial Imp & Exp V ITO, order dated 18.03.2016, passed in ITA No. 5427/Mum/2015 iv) ITO V Shri Sanjay V Dhruv, order dated

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

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

disallowed. The following decisions are also to the same effect : i) M/s Beauty Tex ITA 508/JP/2016 ii) Shri Heera Lal Chuni Lal Jain V ITO, order dated 01.01.2016, passed in ITA No.4547/Mum/2014 iii) M/s Imperial Imp & Exp V ITO, order dated 18.03.2016, passed in ITA No. 5427/Mum/2015 iv) ITO V Shri Sanjay V Dhruv, order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is

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

171+95,27,54,300/-/2* 0.5%). The AO made a further disallowance of Rs.2,09,78,997/- u/s 14A of the Act over and above the said disallowance of Rs.48,48,048/- made suo-moto by the assessee. While doing so, the AO observed that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed as the payment was made to the person having qualified degrees and diplomas and salary was reasonable. Further, since the salary was allowed in the assessment made under ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) section 143(3) in earlier years, doctrine of consistency was applicable as facts were similar The High court of Punjab

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed as the payment was made to the person having qualified degrees and diplomas and salary was reasonable. Further, since the salary was allowed in the assessment made under ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) section 143(3) in earlier years, doctrine of consistency was applicable as facts were similar The High court of Punjab

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed as the payment was made to the person having qualified degrees and diplomas and salary was reasonable. Further, since the salary was allowed in the assessment made under ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) section 143(3) in earlier years, doctrine of consistency was applicable as facts were similar The High court of Punjab

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed as the payment was made to the person having qualified degrees and diplomas and salary was reasonable. Further, since the salary was allowed in the assessment made under ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) section 143(3) in earlier years, doctrine of consistency was applicable as facts were similar The High court of Punjab

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed as the payment was made to the person having qualified degrees and diplomas and salary was reasonable. Further, since the salary was allowed in the assessment made under ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) section 143(3) in earlier years, doctrine of consistency was applicable as facts were similar The High court of Punjab

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed as the payment was made to the person having qualified degrees and diplomas and salary was reasonable. Further, since the salary was allowed in the assessment made under ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) section 143(3) in earlier years, doctrine of consistency was applicable as facts were similar The High court of Punjab

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed as the payment was made to the person having qualified degrees and diplomas and salary was reasonable. Further, since the salary was allowed in the assessment made under ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) section 143(3) in earlier years, doctrine of consistency was applicable as facts were similar The High court of Punjab

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed as the payment was made to the person having qualified degrees and diplomas and salary was reasonable. Further, since the salary was allowed in the assessment made under ITA 02/Chd/2020 & 7 Ors. M/s Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT(E) section 143(3) in earlier years, doctrine of consistency was applicable as facts were similar The High court of Punjab

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

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

171/- in respect of Garg Woollen Mills and Rs. 23,23,339/- in respect of World International Yarns, aggregating to Rs. 2,77,65,510/-, which was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 42. The contention of the assessee is that the differences arose due to commercial disputes with the said parties during the relevant financial

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 263 of the Act and in respect of such decisions, the Revenue is in further appeal before the Hon’ble High Court which are pending adjudication. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which have been assailed by the Revenue and the contents thereof read as under: “7.1 The contention

THE MANDEBAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -5, YAMUNA NAGAR

Bench: Us Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Engaged In Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members For Agricultural Operations & Procurement Of Fertilizers For The Purpose Of Supplying It To Its Members. 3.1 During The Year Under Consideration, It Filed Its Return Of Income Claiming Deduction Under Section 80P Amounting To Rs. 40,87,123/- & Which Includes Deduction Amounting To Rs. 29,44,171/- In Respect Of Interest Income On Deposits Placed With Yamunanagar District Central Cooperative Bank.

disallowance claimed by the assessee society under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs. 29,44,171

ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REGD, MOHALI,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

disallowance of the entire amount of Rs. 1,73,73,648/- by applying the provisions of section 115BBC and section 68 of the Act treating corpus donations received from students to be anonymous donations. 8. We find that the not considering the evidence filed by the Assessee during the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) is not justified