M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the\nappeal of the assessee is allowed

section 36(1)(iii) of\nthe Act by following the earlier order of the ITAT in ITA Nos.\n758/Chd/2014 forthe A.Y. 2010-11 dt. 03/04/2017. The relevant findings\ngiven by the Ld. CIT (A) in para 7.2 of the impugned order read as\nunder:\n7.2 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made by him\nin para

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

254 ITR 6 (P&H) (copy at ACL PB –II, pages 64 to 73, the Hon'ble ITA 326/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 23 jurisdictional High Court has observed, inter-alia, as follows : "Order Before proceeding further, we may notice some of the principles of interpretation of the statutes. These are: (1) The question as to whether a statute is mandatory

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 37.9. It was observed that in that case ('Hero Cycles') neither the High Court, nor the Tribunal, nor the other authorities had examined whether the amount advanced to the sister concern was by way of commercial expediency. 37.10. It was observed that it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that

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)

disallowed from the gross dividend income received by the assessee. From the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it was clear that the assessment was sought to be reopened merely on suspicion that the assessee might have utilized the borrowed fund for investment and that the assessee might have incurred expenditure for earning the dividend income. There was no material

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

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)

disallowance was called for. For A.Y. 2014-15 also, the addition was deleted, though this time by the CIT(A), following the Tribunal Order (supra)for A.Y. 2012-13. The facts remain the same for A.Y. 2013-14 as well. The AO is, accordingly, directed to ascertain the position of availability of the funds of the assessee exceeding the advances

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)

disallowance was called for. For A.Y. 2014-15 also, the addition was deleted, though this time by the CIT(A), following the Tribunal Order (supra)for A.Y. 2012-13. The facts remain the same for A.Y. 2013-14 as well. The AO is, accordingly, directed to ascertain the position of availability of the funds of the assessee exceeding the advances

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)

disallowance was called for. For A.Y. 2014-15 also, the addition was deleted, though this time by the CIT(A), following the Tribunal Order (supra)for A.Y. 2012-13. The facts remain the same for A.Y. 2013-14 as well. The AO is, accordingly, directed to ascertain the position of availability of the funds of the assessee exceeding the advances

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)

disallowance was called for. For A.Y. 2014-15 also, the addition was deleted, though this time by the CIT(A), following the Tribunal Order (supra)for A.Y. 2012-13. The facts remain the same for A.Y. 2013-14 as well. The AO is, accordingly, directed to ascertain the position of availability of the funds of the assessee exceeding the advances

ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD., GURGAON

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1355/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) Dcit-1(1)(1) M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd. R.N.579A, 5Th Floor (Legal Successor Of M/S Glaxosmithkline बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Consumer Healthcare Ltd.) Vs. Mumbai – 400020 Unilever House, B.D. Swant Marg, Chakala Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-1004-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rohit Jain (Advocate) & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) A/W Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 1997-98 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh Dated 02-08-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act On 31-03-2017. The Revenue Has Filed Revised Form No.36 On 10-09-2024 Which Is On Record. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 1997-98 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh dated 02-08-2018 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 31-03-2017. The revenue has filed revised Form No.36

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)

254 dt. 05/03/2018 was issued and served upon the assessee on 06/03/2018. 2.5 A notice under section 142(1) dt. 19/11/2018 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee on 20.11.2018. 2.6 We reproduce below Para 7 and 13 of order of this Tribunal (supra) “ 7. We have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through

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)

254 dt. 05/03/2018 was issued and served upon the assessee on 06/03/2018. 2.5 A notice under section 142(1) dt. 19/11/2018 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee on 20.11.2018. 2.6 We reproduce below Para 7 and 13 of order of this Tribunal (supra) “ 7. We have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through

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)

254 dt. 05/03/2018 was issued and served upon the assessee on 06/03/2018. 2.5 A notice under section 142(1) dt. 19/11/2018 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee on 20.11.2018. 2.6 We reproduce below Para 7 and 13 of order of this Tribunal (supra) “ 7. We have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through

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)

254 dt. 05/03/2018 was issued and served upon the assessee on 06/03/2018. 2.5 A notice under section 142(1) dt. 19/11/2018 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee on 20.11.2018. 2.6 We reproduce below Para 7 and 13 of order of this Tribunal (supra) “ 7. We have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through

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)

254 dt. 05/03/2018 was issued and served upon the assessee on 06/03/2018. 2.5 A notice under section 142(1) dt. 19/11/2018 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee on 20.11.2018. 2.6 We reproduce below Para 7 and 13 of order of this Tribunal (supra) “ 7. We have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through

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)

254 dt. 05/03/2018 was issued and served upon the assessee on 06/03/2018. 2.5 A notice under section 142(1) dt. 19/11/2018 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee on 20.11.2018. 2.6 We reproduce below Para 7 and 13 of order of this Tribunal (supra) “ 7. We have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through

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)

254 dt. 05/03/2018 was issued and served upon the assessee on 06/03/2018. 2.5 A notice under section 142(1) dt. 19/11/2018 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee on 20.11.2018. 2.6 We reproduce below Para 7 and 13 of order of this Tribunal (supra) “ 7. We have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through

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)

254 dt. 05/03/2018 was issued and served upon the assessee on 06/03/2018. 2.5 A notice under section 142(1) dt. 19/11/2018 alongwith detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee on 20.11.2018. 2.6 We reproduce below Para 7 and 13 of order of this Tribunal (supra) “ 7. We have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through

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)

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