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

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

section 80IB(2)(iii) should not produce any article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule of the Act. As per list, six of the Eleventh Schedule it prohibits manufacturing of confectionary and chocolates. The manufacturing of buns is part of confectionary items. Therefore, the assessee cannot be given the benefit u/s 80IB. Since it is manufacturing

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

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

section 80IB(2)(iii) should not produce any article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule of the Act. As per list, six of the Eleventh Schedule it prohibits manufacturing of confectionary and chocolates. The manufacturing of buns is part of confectionary items. Therefore, the assessee cannot be given the benefit u/s 80IB. Since it is manufacturing

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

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

section 80IB(2)(iii) should not produce any article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule of the Act. As per list, six of the Eleventh Schedule it prohibits manufacturing of confectionary and chocolates. The manufacturing of buns is part of confectionary items. Therefore, the assessee cannot be given the benefit u/s 80IB. Since it is manufacturing

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

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

section 80IB(2)(iii) should not produce any article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule of the Act. As per list, six of the Eleventh Schedule it prohibits manufacturing of confectionary and chocolates. The manufacturing of buns is part of confectionary items. Therefore, the assessee cannot be given the benefit u/s 80IB. Since it is manufacturing

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

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

section 80IB(2)(iii) should not produce any article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule of the Act. As per list, six of the Eleventh Schedule it prohibits manufacturing of confectionary and chocolates. The manufacturing of buns is part of confectionary items. Therefore, the assessee cannot be given the benefit u/s 80IB. Since it is manufacturing

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

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

section 80IB(2)(iii) should not produce any article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule of the Act. As per list, six of the Eleventh Schedule it prohibits manufacturing of confectionary and chocolates. The manufacturing of buns is part of confectionary items. Therefore, the assessee cannot be given the benefit u/s 80IB. Since it is manufacturing

M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN.,,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT,, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

Bench: The Itat. That In The First Round The Itat Had Held The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, For The Purposes Of Disallowing Expenses Relating To Exempt Income, Applicable In The Facts Of The Present Cases On Noting That The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income In The Form

Section 14(3) and Rule 8D are not applicable to the year under consideration. Thus the disallowance made by the AO applying Rule 8D be deleted.” 9. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, contended that mere applicability of Rule 8D, which was not enforceable or attracted in those years, would not negate the entire disallowance since even the ITAT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, MANIMAJRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the

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

disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 3,25,000/- despite the fact that assessee has earned the exempt income of Rs. 38,359/- during

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

25. The ld. AR further submitted that the only issue under Corporate Tax is disallowance of interest expenditure under section

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

25. The ld. AR further submitted that the only issue under Corporate Tax is disallowance of interest expenditure under section

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 69C are not applicable in the case of appellant. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed a sum of Rs. 28,48,416/- being 80% of sales commission of Rs. 35,60,520/-claimed by the 886-CHD-2024 4 appellant on flimsy grounds without properly appreciating

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

25. Here, it is relevant to note that there has been no change in the provisions of section 40A(3) in so far as considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors are concerned, as existed at relevant point in time and as considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of section 40A(3) as exist

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., PANCHKULA

In the result, we upheld the

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

25,69,31,741/-, hence the difference amount of Rs. 17,73,52,597/- was disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 19. During

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

disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted.” In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed.” 9.1 Accordingly, ground Nos. 1 to 5 stand allowed. 10.0 As far as the issue of Educational Cess being deductible expenditure is concerned, we agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that the issue is covered in assessee’s favour

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2016, making the following disallowances:  Disallowance of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction