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

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

4. In view of the order of the Honorable ITAT, Division Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No. 1063/Chd/2011 (Departments appeal) & ITA No. 297/Chd/2014(assessee's appeal) dated 14.10.2015, the issues with regard to additions of Rs.36,02,230/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act as the assessee

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

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

4. In view of the order of the Honorable ITAT, Division Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No. 1063/Chd/2011 (Departments appeal) & ITA No. 297/Chd/2014(assessee's appeal) dated 14.10.2015, the issues with regard to additions of Rs.36,02,230/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act as the assessee

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

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

4. In view of the order of the Honorable ITAT, Division Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No. 1063/Chd/2011 (Departments appeal) & ITA No. 297/Chd/2014(assessee's appeal) dated 14.10.2015, the issues with regard to additions of Rs.36,02,230/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act as the assessee

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

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

4. In view of the order of the Honorable ITAT, Division Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No. 1063/Chd/2011 (Departments appeal) & ITA No. 297/Chd/2014(assessee's appeal) dated 14.10.2015, the issues with regard to additions of Rs.36,02,230/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act as the assessee

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. 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

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. 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, LUDHIANA vs. M/S DEVAKAR INVESTMENT & TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

4. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition based on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Chandigarh in the assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 5. Before us the Ld. DR submitted the arguments in the written form which are as under and prayed that the disallowance

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed