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)

4 has become academic and the same is left open at this stage without further deliberations. Corporate Issues 8. In ground no.5 of appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of interest expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure on borrowed funds utilized for capital expansion project. The ld. AR submitted that similar disallowance

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)

4 has become academic and the same is left open at this stage without further deliberations. Corporate Issues 8. In ground no.5 of appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of interest expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of interest expenditure on borrowed funds utilized for capital expansion project. The ld. AR submitted that similar disallowance

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, 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, 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

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

M/S HEADMASTER SALOON PVT.LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), 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)

disallowed. Accordingly the assessee was /asked vide order sheet entry dt. 17/10/2016 to explain as to why these payments be not allowed as these payments have been made in the contravention of the provisions of Section 40A(3). In response the Counsel 11 submitted that although the surrendered income was to cover up for all discrepancies, however the amount

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

The appeal is disposed off accordingly as aforesaid

Bench: Us:

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being aggrieved by the order dt. 06/09/2018 in respect of A.Y. 2008-09 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 before

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

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)

4 1 0 ITR A 66 (SC) notwithstanding the aspect that the Assessee did not discharge the onus cast upon him to prove with cogent material /evidence that the funds diverted were for business consideration / commercial expediency within the meaning of Section 36(l)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 3 it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been

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