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

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

section 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19

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

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

section 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19

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

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

section 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19

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

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

section 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19

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

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

section 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19

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

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

section 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19

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 under section 14A of the Act. So the addition made shall be deleted. 2. The another additions made is on the account of income on NPA as per section 43D of the ACT for Rs 66,53,09,400/-. To this it is explained that from Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2018 there has been amendment

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

disallowance of Rs.53,03,657/- applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rule 8D2)(iii) ignoring the submissions of the assessee which are placed at PB Page 15-18. In this regard we would like to first refer to the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act which are reproduced as below: ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 40A(3) is upheld.In the result, this ground raised by the Assessee is dismissed. 18. Concerning the disallowance of Rs.10,24,000/- on account of unverifiable purchases, the Ld. AR submitted that the disallowance is unwarranted as the assessee had duly furnished vouchers in support of the purchases in question. In contrast, the Ld. DR relied on the findings

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)

19. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently defended the assessment order and the directions of the DRP to contend that disallowance under section

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)

19. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently defended the assessment order and the directions of the DRP to contend that disallowance under section

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)

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 19. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the interest

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AVON CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Circle-5, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R & C.O.No.6/Chd/2016 In M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs. The A.C.I.T., G.T. Road, Circle-5, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, amounting to Rs.14,42,161/-. Ground of appeal Nos.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed. 11. Ground Nos.3 and 4 raised by the Revenue relate to disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on account of expenditure incurred for earning exempt income amounting

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

disallowed as a deduction under sub-section (3), then the payment may be made by such cheque or draft; and where the payment is so made or tendered, no person shall be allowed to raise, in any suit or other proceeding, a plea based on the ground that the payment was not made or tendered in cash

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)

19. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 3 to 6 of the Department’s appeal are rejected and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is accepted.” 10. The Tribunal, thus, decided the matter in favour of the assessee and directed the disallowance under Section

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

19), dated 18th May, 1967 issued by the CBDT which reads as follows :- “Interpretation of provision of Section 40(a)(ii) of IT Act, 1961 – Clarification regarding.- “Recently a case has come to the notice of the Board where the Income Tax Officer has disallowed

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 40(a)(ia): Disallowed 30% of Rs. 19,27,329 paid as interest to six ex-employees without TDS, as required

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

disallowances of interest made by the A.O. under section 36(1) (iii) of the Act. 19. The facts related to this

ACIT, C-6, LUDHIANA vs. MAJESTIC HOTELS LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The order of Ld.CIT (A) on 15 A.Y.2012-13 this account, in deleting the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.1,33,11,998/- is, therefore, upheld. Ground Nos.2, 2.1 and 2.2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 19