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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

191 ITR 667 (SC)], and by several decisions of coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, including Raja & Co., ITA No. 534/Cochin/2011, M/s A. Daga Royal Arts, ITA No. 1065/JP/2016, and Excel Engineers vs. JCIT, ITA No. 1588/Kol/2013. According to the assessee, these decisions support the claim that the impugned disallowance under Section

SHRI RAJA RAM,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO-WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

disallowance made by the A.O. by following the amended provisions in clause (va) to sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein Explanation 2 has been inserted to clarify that the provisions of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the “due date

SANCHI MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-5(2), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

disallowance made by the A.O. by following the amended provisions in clause (va) to sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein Explanation 2 has been inserted to clarify that the provisions of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the “due date

SHRI RAJA RAM,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO-WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Sainihearing Through Video Conferencing

disallowance made by the A.O. by following the amended provisions in clause (va) to sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein Explanation 2 has been inserted to clarify that the provisions of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the “due date

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ITO , WARD -1,, SANGRUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. The contention of the assessee in the written submission was that the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees had been deposited before

ABHINAV IMPEX,LUDHIANA vs. ITO , LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: The Date Of Filing The Return Of Income Under Income Tax Act, 1961. In So Far As The Income-Tax Act Is Concerned, The Assesse Can Get The Benefit If The Actual Payment Is Made Before The Return Is Filed. The Employee Share For Epf Is Rs. 1,17,494/-And Esi Is Rs. 45,993/-.

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The contention of the assessee in the written submission was that the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees had been deposited before

M/S LONGOWALIA YARNS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLE -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Filing Of The Return.

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that since the payment of Rs. 29,22,964/- towards ESI and PF was not made within

ATUL GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD 1 (1),, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The contention of the assessee in the written submission was that the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees had been deposited before

M/S SUPERMECH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to cases, therefore respectfully following the earlier orders as referred to herein above of the different

M/S S.R. INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowed an interest amount under Section 36(1) at Rs.77,191/-. He has examined the WIP, interest position etc. 9. While

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 13(3) and 164(2) of the Income Tax Act. ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 10 10.1 While impugning the disallowances, ld. counsel for the assessee took us through the Paper Book. He submitted that details of honorarium paid to different individuals in all these years is being placed on page 191

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 13(3) and 164(2) of the Income Tax Act. ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 10 10.1 While impugning the disallowances, ld. counsel for the assessee took us through the Paper Book. He submitted that details of honorarium paid to different individuals in all these years is being placed on page 191

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

191 held that for disallowance u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the total fund (i.e owned fund and borrowed funds) is considered for working out the disallowance of interest. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the above said case held that “ Where mixed funds are diverted towards interest free advances, the disallowance