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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that subsidy was granted on 27th Jan., 1995 while operations of the assessee commenced on 16th Nov., 1994. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CLT (1997) 142 CTR (SO 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SO and judgment of this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

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

disallowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r/w section 43B and of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee in its submission stated that regarding GPF of Rs. 253

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

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

disallowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r/w section 43B and of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee in its submission stated that regarding GPF of Rs. 253

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the assessee. 3. Brief facts relating to the issue as culled out from the order of CIT(A) are that the assessee, M/s Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (hereinafter referred to as ‘CLTA’) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The assessee is also registered as a charitable entity vide order dated

ASHISH SOOD,ZIRAKPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before us against the aforesaid order dt. 28/11/2023. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee had for the A.Y. 2020-21 had filed return of income under 21/09/2020 section 139(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on under acknowledgment no. 569299010210920 declaring the total income as Rs. 1,65,39,120/- wherein total

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

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Revenue is aggrieved by the order no. ITBA/FAC/250/2022- 23/1044150537(1) dt. 22/07/2022 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Revenue is time barred

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, bearing order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2022 dt. 27/03/2023 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. The impugned order has revised the AO’s order no. ITBA/AST/S/143(3) 2020-21/1027309634(1) dt. 12/06/2020 which is hereinafter referred

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

Section 37(1) does not apply on the facts of this case.” 1 1 . I n v i e w

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

Section 37(1) does not apply on the facts of this case.” 1 1 . I n v i e w

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

Section 37(1) does not apply on the facts of this case.” 1 1 . I n v i e w

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. After considering submissions of assessee the Assessing Officer was not convinced and proportionately capitalized interest thereby making addition of Rs.4,06,900/-. Both sides are unanimous in stating that the issue raised by the assessee in ground no.5 of appeal is identical to the 8 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. After considering submissions of assessee the Assessing Officer was not convinced and proportionately capitalized interest thereby making addition of Rs.4,06,900/-. Both sides are unanimous in stating that the issue raised by the assessee in ground no.5 of appeal is identical to the 8 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

section 253 of the Act and has interalia raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ludhiana vide appeal No. 47/ROT(10725)/CHD/IT/CIT(A)-4/LDH/2016-17 dated 22.06.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case