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 by the Assessing officer on following grounds:- 1. Considering manufacturing of Buns as Negative item under schedule eleventh of the Act. 2. Inclusion of certain assets as a part of Plant & Machinery while computing the total eligible value of Plant & Machinery for SSI Limit. 3. By Wrongly referring circular no S. O 2(E) dated 1st January 1993. Reply

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 by the Assessing officer on following grounds:- 1. Considering manufacturing of Buns as Negative item under schedule eleventh of the Act. 2. Inclusion of certain assets as a part of Plant & Machinery while computing the total eligible value of Plant & Machinery for SSI Limit. 3. By Wrongly referring circular no S. O 2(E) dated 1st January 1993. Reply

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

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

disallowed by the Assessing officer on following grounds:- 1. Considering manufacturing of Buns as Negative item under schedule eleventh of the Act. 2. Inclusion of certain assets as a part of Plant & Machinery while computing the total eligible value of Plant & Machinery for SSI Limit. 3. By Wrongly referring circular no S. O 2(E) dated 1st January 1993. Reply

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 by the Assessing officer on following grounds:- 1. Considering manufacturing of Buns as Negative item under schedule eleventh of the Act. 2. Inclusion of certain assets as a part of Plant & Machinery while computing the total eligible value of Plant & Machinery for SSI Limit. 3. By Wrongly referring circular no S. O 2(E) dated 1st January 1993. Reply

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 36(1)(iii), of interest paid on sums borrowed from banks. The AO disallowed the claim. It was observed that the assessee had advanced money to its subsidiary company and this advance did not carry any interest. According to the AO, the assessee had borrowed money from the banks and had paid interest thereon. It was observed that deduction

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of Miscellaneous / other expenses and consequent reduction of 80IC deductions. 16. Per contra Ld. AR of the assesse has contended before us that ld. AO for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80IC ought not to have reduced “cash discount earned on the purchases” made for the purpose of manufacturing which was recorded under the head “miscellaneous income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of Miscellaneous / other expenses and consequent reduction of 80IC deductions. 16. Per contra Ld. AR of the assesse has contended before us that ld. AO for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80IC ought not to have reduced “cash discount earned on the purchases” made for the purpose of manufacturing which was recorded under the head “miscellaneous income

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of Miscellaneous / other expenses and consequent reduction of 80IC deductions. 16. Per contra Ld. AR of the assesse has contended before us that ld. AO for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80IC ought not to have reduced “cash discount earned on the purchases” made for the purpose of manufacturing which was recorded under the head “miscellaneous income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of Miscellaneous / other expenses and consequent reduction of 80IC deductions. 16. Per contra Ld. AR of the assesse has contended before us that ld. AO for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80IC ought not to have reduced “cash discount earned on the purchases” made for the purpose of manufacturing which was recorded under the head “miscellaneous income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of Miscellaneous / other expenses and consequent reduction of 80IC deductions. 16. Per contra Ld. AR of the assesse has contended before us that ld. AO for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80IC ought not to have reduced “cash discount earned on the purchases” made for the purpose of manufacturing which was recorded under the head “miscellaneous income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of Miscellaneous / other expenses and consequent reduction of 80IC deductions. 16. Per contra Ld. AR of the assesse has contended before us that ld. AO for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80IC ought not to have reduced “cash discount earned on the purchases” made for the purpose of manufacturing which was recorded under the head “miscellaneous income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of Miscellaneous / other expenses and consequent reduction of 80IC deductions. 16. Per contra Ld. AR of the assesse has contended before us that ld. AO for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80IC ought not to have reduced “cash discount earned on the purchases” made for the purpose of manufacturing which was recorded under the head “miscellaneous income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of Miscellaneous / other expenses and consequent reduction of 80IC deductions. 16. Per contra Ld. AR of the assesse has contended before us that ld. AO for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80IC ought not to have reduced “cash discount earned on the purchases” made for the purpose of manufacturing which was recorded under the head “miscellaneous income

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance made by the assessing officer and sustained by the C1T(A) is unlawful and not sustainable for the reasons submitted as under: The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of 'Over the Counter" (OTC) products, viz. ENO, Crocin etc. The appellant vide agreement dated 18-01-1996 with GSK plc. (earlier known

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

200 of the Income-tax Act read with rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Failure to deduct tax or failure to pay tax would also render a person liable to penalty under section 201 read with section 221 of the Income-tax Act. In addition, he would also be liable under section 201(1A) to pay simple interest

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

200 of the Income-tax Act read with rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Failure to deduct tax or failure to pay tax would also render a person liable to penalty under section 201 read with section 221 of the Income-tax Act. In addition, he would also be liable under section 201(1A) to pay simple interest

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

200 of the Income-tax Act read with rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Failure to deduct tax or failure to pay tax would also render a person liable to penalty under section 201 read with section 221 of the Income-tax Act. In addition, he would also be liable under section 201(1A) to pay simple interest

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

200 of the Income-tax Act read with rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Failure to deduct tax or failure to pay tax would also render a person liable to penalty under section 201 read with section 221 of the Income-tax Act. In addition, he would also be liable under section 201(1A) to pay simple interest