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

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

disallowed. There is no such prohibitive condition under section 70 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to seek set off of operating loss as business loss of the year." 6. At this juncture, Ld. CIT(A) held that there was no discussion in the assessment order regarding the evidence that the assessee was required

M/S PIONEER PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

disallowance @ 10.30% (on average cost of debts) amounting to Rs. 1,34,215/- invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Penalty

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of expenditure/deduction claimed by the assessee under the head interest payment to MOF, GOI and Chandigarh Administration as it is clearly a diversion of income having no under line business use/commercial expediency. (ii) Addition of Rs. 4,21,345/- on account of expense of Income Tax on perk values as per provision of section

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of expenditure/deduction claimed by the assessee under the head interest payment to MOF, GOI and Chandigarh Administration as it is clearly a diversion of income having no under line business use/commercial expediency. (ii) Addition of Rs. 4,21,345/- on account of expense of Income Tax on perk values as per provision of section

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of expenditure/deduction claimed by the assessee under the head interest payment to MOF, GOI and Chandigarh Administration as it is clearly a diversion of income having no under line business use/commercial expediency. (ii) Addition of Rs. 4,21,345/- on account of expense of Income Tax on perk values as per provision of section

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of expenditure/deduction claimed by the assessee under the head interest payment to MOF, GOI and Chandigarh Administration as it is clearly a diversion of income having no under line business use/commercial expediency. (ii) Addition of Rs. 4,21,345/- on account of expense of Income Tax on perk values as per provision of section

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing the claim of the assessee appellant under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact the in the original assessment which was made u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA Nos. 625 to 630 & 707 to 710-chd-2019 Shri Tarun Jain & Others, Ludhiana 4 the case of Sh. Sanjay Jain

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing the claim of the assessee appellant under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact the in the original assessment which was made u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA Nos. 625 to 630 & 707 to 710-chd-2019 Shri Tarun Jain & Others, Ludhiana 4 the case of Sh. Sanjay Jain

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing the claim of the assessee appellant under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact the in the original assessment which was made u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA Nos. 625 to 630 & 707 to 710-chd-2019 Shri Tarun Jain & Others, Ludhiana 4 the case of Sh. Sanjay Jain

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing the claim of the assessee appellant under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact the in the original assessment which was made u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA Nos. 625 to 630 & 707 to 710-chd-2019 Shri Tarun Jain & Others, Ludhiana 4 the case of Sh. Sanjay Jain

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing the claim of the assessee appellant under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact the in the original assessment which was made u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA Nos. 625 to 630 & 707 to 710-chd-2019 Shri Tarun Jain & Others, Ludhiana 4 the case of Sh. Sanjay Jain

SANJAY JAIN & SONS,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing the claim of the assessee appellant under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact the in the original assessment which was made u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA Nos. 625 to 630 & 707 to 710-chd-2019 Shri Tarun Jain & Others, Ludhiana 4 the case of Sh. Sanjay Jain

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowing the claim of the assessee appellant under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact the in the original assessment which was made u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA Nos. 625 to 630 & 707 to 710-chd-2019 Shri Tarun Jain & Others, Ludhiana 4 the case of Sh. Sanjay Jain

CHARAN SINGH,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSA,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal.

disallowed by invoking Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered Kachha Arhtiya under the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sirsa. He filed his return of income on 20.09.2022, declaring a total income of ₹4,29,190 and claiming a refund of ₹63,590 on the basis

ITO, SUNAM HQ SANGRUR vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI RICE MILLS, KHANOURI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of

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

section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further the CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the fact that the paddy milled by the assessee is directly dehusked through mechanical process without any aid from the boiler. 3. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has failed to state

M/S MRS. BECTOR FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

disallowed. As regards interest on machinery under installation we have taken a term loan on the same and interest payable on the loan has been capitalized. Copy of account of machinery under installation is enclosed.” 7. Before us the Ld. AR relied on the judgment in the case of M/s PHI Seeds India Ltd. 301 ITR 13 (Del) wherein

PUNJAB STATE COOP. BANK LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CL-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result the impugned order of Ld

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

disallowed the amount Rs.7,43,000/- as income of the assessee by holding as under: The assessee claims NPA as an expenditure under the Income Tax Act 1961. However, it has failed to show the amount as income which has been recovered from the NPAs. Therefore, the amount of Rs.743,000/- is added to the Income of the assessee. Further

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

disallowance. 5. On examination of assessment records, the Ld. Pr. CIT noticed that during the relevant year, the assessee had received an interest amounting to Rs. 1,05,10,592/- on enhanced compensation arising from the acquisition of land. The Assessing Officer had treated the said receipt as exempt and did not bring the same to tax. 6. According