DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

section 13(3) of IT Act. In this regard it is submitted that Sh G S Sardana is the chairman of the Manav Mangal Schools. Sh. Sanjay Sardana and Sandeep Sardana are two Directors of the Manav Mangal Schools having three schools (Manav Mangal High School, Sector 21, Chandigarh, Manav Mangal School Sector 11 Panchkula and Manav Mangal Smart School

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

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

disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,PATIALA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

disallowed u/s 14A, relying upon the decision of the I.T.A.T., Calcutta Bench in the case of UCO Bank Vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Calcutta dated 27.11.2015 wherein it was held that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of banks such as the assessee. 35. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee relied upon the order

ACIT, PATIALA vs. M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

disallowed u/s 14A, relying upon the decision of the I.T.A.T., Calcutta Bench in the case of UCO Bank Vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Calcutta dated 27.11.2015 wherein it was held that the provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of banks such as the assessee. 35. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee relied upon the order

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. PATIALA URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

211/- which A.Y.2014-15 2 was added by the AO with the aid of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 2. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee has given loans to Municipal Corporation, Patiala, Punjab Municipal Infrastructure Development Company and PUDA. The assessee did not charge interest on these loans

ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

sections 145 and 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Reference to High Court - Question of fact - Assessment years 1987-88 and 1988- 89 - ITO disallowed depreciation claimed by assessee on view that since income was computed by applying net rate, claim of depreciation was not permissible - Tribunal reversed ITO's order and directed him to allow depreciation to assessee

SH. GURJANT SINGH AOLUKH,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6 (1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing delayed payments of employees contribution to ESI and PF amounting to Rs. 8,70,211/- by invoking the provisions of section

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,09,560/-. 4. Subsequently, the assessment records were called for and examined by the Ld. PCIT, Panchkula and a show cause under section 263 dt. 12/12/2023 was issued by the Ld. PCIT and the contents thereof read as under: “Perusal of assessment record reveals that you had sold

M/S SJVN LTD. ( FORMERLY SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED),SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

disallowance under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) comes into play, but, as for latter, there is no such disabling provision as long as the expenses, even in discharge of corporate social responsibility on voluntary basis, can be said to be "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business". There is no dispute that the expenses in question

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. M/S SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED, SHIMLA

disallowance under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) comes into play, but, as for latter, there is no such disabling provision as long as the expenses, even in discharge of corporate social responsibility on voluntary basis, can be said to be "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business". There is no dispute that the expenses in question

M/S SJVN LTD. ( FORMERLY SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED),SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

disallowance under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) comes into play, but, as for latter, there is no such disabling provision as long as the expenses, even in discharge of corporate social responsibility on voluntary basis, can be said to be "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business". There is no dispute that the expenses in question