VARDHMAN POLYTEX LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT(TDS), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. Though Notices Were Issued Electronically Through The E-Filing Portal, The Assessee Contended That Such Notices Were Neither Brought To Their Knowledge Nor Received Through Any Alternative Means Such As Email Or Physical Intimation. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte. It Was Further Submitted That The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is Legal In Nature & Does Not Require Examination Of Disputed Facts; Hence, The Matter May Be Adjudicated On Merits Without The Necessity Of A Remand To The Lower Authorities.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961for the Assessment year 2015-16. 2. The primary grievance of the assessee is against the confirmation of the demand of Rs.15,90,081/- raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, arising out of alleged non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C(6) in respect of freight payments

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 250(6) of the Act. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely reproduced the findings of the Assessing Officer and the submissions of the assessee without recording independent findings or giving proper reasons for confirming the additions. It was contended that the first appellate authority is required to pass a speaking order stating the points

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 250(6) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 105 85/16-17 dated 15.01.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in sustaining the disallowance

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 250(6) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 105 85/16-17 dated 15.01.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in sustaining the disallowance

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 250(6) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 105 85/16-17 dated 15.01.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in sustaining the disallowance

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 250(6) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 105 85/16-17 dated 15.01.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in sustaining the disallowance

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 18/03/2019 for assessment year 2015-16, wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,81,18,083/- made by the Assessing Officer

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

250(6)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’. ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11 Page 2 of 20 2. At the outset itself, it was pointed out that the issue involved in all the appeals was common, relating to disallowance of expenses incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

6 8.1 The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance relying on CBDT Circular No. 10/DV/2013 and the decision in CIT v. Crescent Export Syndicate (2013) 33 taxmann.com 250 (Cal), which held that Section

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

ITO, WARD, PALAMPUR vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KANGRA

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

Bench: Us Is Filed Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, As Amended From Time To Time. The Respondent Is A Cooperative Bank.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal before us is filed under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, as amended from time to time. The Respondent is a Cooperative Bank. 2. The Appellant Income Tax Department has raised following grounds of appeal in the Form No. 36. i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

KISSAN FATS LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250(6) of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The assessee is a company under the Companies Act, 1956/2013. The assessee is into the business of manufacturing vanaspati ghee and refined oil and had filed return of income at rs. 2,07,78,950/- on 30/09/2013. 3. The assessee maintains audited books

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2015-16

250 CTR 291 (Kar) , wherein it was held that where securities are held as stock in trade, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. 5.2 I have considered the assessment order and submissions made by the appellant. It is worthwhile to mention here that the issue involved in these grounds has been decided by Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh vide

ACIT, C-6, LUDHIANA vs. MAJESTIC HOTELS LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short referred to as ‘Act’). 2. Ground Nos.1 and 1.1 raised by the Revenue reads as under: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.24,56,693/- made by the Assessing Officer

M/S LONGOWALIA YARNS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLE -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Filing Of The Return.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he 87-c-2022- Longowalia Yarns Ltd , Ludhiana 2 was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in disallowing

M/S KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1014 To 1016/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2013-14 At the outset it was stated by both the parties that common issues were involved in all the appeals.All the appeals were therefore taken up together for hearing and are being disposed off by this common consolidated order. We shall first