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

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

disallowance of deduct ion of proportionate profits of Rs.16,36,199/- on the job charges earned by the assessee from ITC Limited at the Tahliwal Unit . The assessee had received job charges of Rs.6,21,91,396/- from ITC Limited for the manufacture of biscuits. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to deduct ion u/s 80IC

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

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

disallowance of deduct ion of proportionate profits of Rs.16,36,199/- on the job charges earned by the assessee from ITC Limited at the Tahliwal Unit . The assessee had received job charges of Rs.6,21,91,396/- from ITC Limited for the manufacture of biscuits. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to deduct ion u/s 80IC

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

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

disallowance of deduct ion of proportionate profits of Rs.16,36,199/- on the job charges earned by the assessee from ITC Limited at the Tahliwal Unit . The assessee had received job charges of Rs.6,21,91,396/- from ITC Limited for the manufacture of biscuits. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to deduct ion u/s 80IC

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

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

disallowance of deduct ion of proportionate profits of Rs.16,36,199/- on the job charges earned by the assessee from ITC Limited at the Tahliwal Unit . The assessee had received job charges of Rs.6,21,91,396/- from ITC Limited for the manufacture of biscuits. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to deduct ion u/s 80IC

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 43B: Disallowed Rs. 37,50,000 (bonus) and Rs. 45,28,750 (ex-gratia) as they were paid on October 28, 2016, after the return filing due date (October 17, 2016). The Commissioner upheld this, dismissing the appellant’s plea for allowance in A.Y. 2017-18 as outside the appeal’s scope. (ii) Rs. 5,78,199

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

disallowance so made by the AO should be deleted. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee held that the issue under consideration needs to be looked at firstly from the perspective that where the payments are made to members of the Union and not made to the third party, whether the provision to 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

disallowable expenditure under Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. Ms. Linhares was unable to state whether the Revenue has appealed this decision. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate submitted that his research did not suggest that any appeal was instituted by the Revenue against this decision, which is directly on the point and favours the Assessee. 31. Mr. Ramani

M/S NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 262/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 20112-13 बनाम M/S Nahar Industrial The Acit, Enterprises, Focal Point, Circle-7, Aayakar Bhawan, Ludhiana. Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaccn3563A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Through Video Conferencing "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Navdeep Sharma, Adv. राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Sandeep Dhaiya, Cit Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2021 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2021 आदेश/Order Per R.L. Negi:

disallowance u/s 14A read with section 8D of the Income Tax Rules (For short ‘the Rules’), addition of Rs. 39,56,199

DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallow the expenditure In this regard it is stated as under: Provisions as per Income Tax Act:- a. Section 195 states that a person responsible for making payment to non-corporate nonresident assessee or to a company other than domestic company, of any interest other than interest on securities) or any other sum ( not being salary) is required

YOGESH CHANDER & SONS HUF,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), LUDHIANA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the CPC holding that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions of the proviso to Rule 37BA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, namely (i) filing of declaration with the deductor, and (ii) reporting of tax deduction by the deductor in the name of the other person.

199 but has wrongly rejected the claim only on the basis of procedural lapse. 5. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), filed its return of income declaring total income

SH. RAKESH KUMAR SINGLA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President)

disallowing the credit of Rs.3,37,091/- and allowing, instead, refund of only Rs.1,03,070/-, including interest. In response to the intimation issued u/s 143(1), the assessee filed a rectification application on 04.04.2022. This was accepted by the AO and the assessee was issued additional refund of Rs.3,42,150/-, including interest, vide order dated 06.06.2022. Thereafter

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT-CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

disallowed under section 37 of the Act. 3.2 In response the assessee filed reply on 21/12/2019 and stated that as per Clause 8 of the lease deed the assessee will be responsible for any wear and tear, maintenance and other repairs of the building. Thus, the loss on account of fire was claimed as revenue loss and not the capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. DEEP KAUR PANNU THROUGH L/H RANJI SINGH PANNU & GURBILAS PLATO SINGH PANNU, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 987/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Deep Kaur Pannu, Circle 1(1), बनाम # 1070, Chandigarh Sector 15-B, Vs. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abmpk1575B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Manoj Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.7.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and computing income from House Property (H.No. 199, Tehsil Pura, at Amritsar), let out by the assessee. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal before the final hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the Assessee

SURYA MOTORS,ABOHAR vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 302/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Surya Motors, Vs. The Dcit, Near Dav Campus, बनाम Central Circle-3, Hanuman Road, Ludhiana Abohar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadfs2727B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None ( Written Submissions ) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana (Herein Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’ ) Dated 10.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Tds Of Rs. 41157/- Relating To National Insurance Co. Ltd.

disallowance of credit of TDS is excessive & unreasonable. 5. That the humble appellant prays for permission to add or amend any grounds of appeal before disposal of the appeal. 3. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee has filed a letter dated 3.4.2024 in which he has requested to dispose of the appeal on the basis

HIMALAYAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,KULLU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE/DCIT CPC,BENGLURU, MANDI

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Income Tax Return Was On Bonafide Grounds, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay.

199 ITR 818(Cal) 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee furnished the return of income in due time and was registered under section 12A of the Act. It was further submitted that the assessee furnished Form