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)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is warranted. To support his contention, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal reported as 361 ITR 432. 12 आअसं.253

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)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is warranted. To support his contention, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal reported as 361 ITR 432. 12 आअसं.253

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowed the foreign travel expenses which clearly form part of the operating expenses and the cost base and on which the assessee has reported the revenues after considering the mark up of 16.60%. Such an action on part of the AO is clearly in breach of letter and spirit of the APA which has been entered into by CBDT

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEV. CORP. LTD., PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance under Section 36(l)(iii) of t h e Income Tax Act, 1961 is squarely covered in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Industries Limited, reported as [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC) wherein the issue has been held to be a pure question of fact

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

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

253 of the Act grants right of appeal to the assessee, aggrieved by any of the orders specified therein , to the ITAT. As per Section 254 of the Act, the ITAT may after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it deems fit. Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules

THE SHAHABAD COOP. SUGAR MILLS,SHAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 11/03/2018 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order, Before This Tribunal In Form No. 36 Has Interalia Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 11/03/2018 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order, before this Tribunal in Form No. 36 has interalia raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the addition of Rs.465647/- as interest on share investment is not justified when

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)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

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)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

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)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails

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)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) despite the submission of Form 26A, which proves that the deductees had paid the taxes.The Ld. AR has relied on the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under:- “Provided further that where an assessee fails