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: -

disallowances made in the regular assessment. The order passed on 31-03-2017 was not an order of regular assessment as envisaged u/s 234D. Accordingly, the interest as charged by Ld. AO was deleted against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. The short issue that falls for our consideration is to adjudicate

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

disallowed. The following decisions are also to the same effect : i) M/s Beauty Tex ITA 508/JP/2016 ii) Shri Heera Lal Chuni Lal Jain V ITO, order dated 01.01.2016, passed in ITA No.4547/Mum/2014 iii) M/s Imperial Imp & Exp V ITO, order dated 18.03.2016, passed in ITA No. 5427/Mum/2015 iv) ITO V Shri Sanjay V Dhruv, order dated

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

disallowed. The following decisions are also to the same effect : i) M/s Beauty Tex ITA 508/JP/2016 ii) Shri Heera Lal Chuni Lal Jain V ITO, order dated 01.01.2016, passed in ITA No.4547/Mum/2014 iii) M/s Imperial Imp & Exp V ITO, order dated 18.03.2016, passed in ITA No. 5427/Mum/2015 iv) ITO V Shri Sanjay V Dhruv, order dated

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

disallowed. The following decisions are also to the same effect : i) M/s Beauty Tex ITA 508/JP/2016 ii) Shri Heera Lal Chuni Lal Jain V ITO, order dated 01.01.2016, passed in ITA No.4547/Mum/2014 iii) M/s Imperial Imp & Exp V ITO, order dated 18.03.2016, passed in ITA No. 5427/Mum/2015 iv) ITO V Shri Sanjay V Dhruv, order dated

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

260 (Delhi) (xi) Assessment year 2004-05 - During relevant assessment year, assessee had purchased sand from 'S' on different dates - Assessing Officer issued notice to 'S' under section 133(6) which returned back with remarks 'not known' - Assessing Officer, thus, disallowed

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

260 (Delhi) (xi) Assessment year 2004-05 - During relevant assessment year, assessee had purchased sand from 'S' on different dates - Assessing Officer issued notice to 'S' under section 133(6) which returned back with remarks 'not known' - Assessing Officer, thus, disallowed

HIMALAYAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,KULLU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE/DCIT CPC,BENGLURU, MANDI

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Income Tax Return Was On Bonafide Grounds, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay.

disallowing the benefit under section 11(2) of the Act to the assessee. He requested to restore the issue back to the file of the A.O. to allow the claim after verification. The reliance was placed on the following case laws : • M/s Infrastructure Development Fund Vs. The DCIT, Exemptions in ITA No. 220/Chd/2020 for the A.Y. 2016-17 vide order

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to avoid hyper-technical disallowances that contradict the purpose of the Income Tax Act." vi). Shree Jain SwetamberMurtipujakTapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemption): "Substantial justice must take precedence over technical compliance issues, particularly for charitable trusts." 5.6 Further, our reference was drawn to the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to avoid hyper-technical disallowances that contradict the purpose of the Income Tax Act." vi). Shree Jain SwetamberMurtipujakTapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemption): "Substantial justice must take precedence over technical compliance issues, particularly for charitable trusts." 5.6 Further, our reference was drawn to the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA,ITO WARD 6(3), LUDHIANA,CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to avoid hyper-technical disallowances that contradict the purpose of the Income Tax Act." vi). Shree Jain SwetamberMurtipujakTapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemption): "Substantial justice must take precedence over technical compliance issues, particularly for charitable trusts." 5.6 Further, our reference was drawn to the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to avoid hyper-technical disallowances that contradict the purpose of the Income Tax Act." vi). Shree Jain SwetamberMurtipujakTapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemption): "Substantial justice must take precedence over technical compliance issues, particularly for charitable trusts." 5.6 Further, our reference was drawn to the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

260 ITR 202) following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cash of Phool Chand Bajrang Lai Vs. ITO (203 ITR 456). The ratio of the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel would, therefore, not help the case of the appellant. As discussed above on receiving the information regarding the credit entries in the bank account

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

260 ITR 202) following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cash of Phool Chand Bajrang Lai Vs. ITO (203 ITR 456). The ratio of the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel would, therefore, not help the case of the appellant. As discussed above on receiving the information regarding the credit entries in the bank account

SIR AUROBINDO SOCIO ECONOMIC & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

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

Section 11 of the I.T Act, 1961." ITA 1348 & 1375/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 24 17.14 In “CIT Vs Gokula Education Foundation” (2017) 394 ITR 236 (Karnataka High Court), it has been held as follows : "The Assessing Officer found that there is no specific activity mentioned and the language used is general and therefore he disallowed the claim. The matter

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHRI AUROBINDO SOCIO ECONOMIC & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LUDHINA

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

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

Section 11 of the I.T Act, 1961." ITA 1348 & 1375/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 24 17.14 In “CIT Vs Gokula Education Foundation” (2017) 394 ITR 236 (Karnataka High Court), it has been held as follows : "The Assessing Officer found that there is no specific activity mentioned and the language used is general and therefore he disallowed the claim. The matter

M/SQUIXOTIC HEALTHCARE,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CPC/ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

disallowance made was sustained by Addl. Commissioner on account of the fact that the Amendments carried out by Finance Act 2021 in Sections 36(1)(va) and Sec. 43B were considered to be clarificatory, hence retrospective in nature. The said view has consistently been held to be incorrect by various orders of the ITAT as on a bare consideration

MANMEET ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT,CPC//DCIT-CIRCLE-V(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance made was sustained by Addl. Commissioner on account of the fact that the Amendments carried out by Finance Act 2021 in Sections 36(1)(va) and Sec. 43B were considered to be clarificatory, hence retrospective in nature. The said view has consistently been held to be incorrect by various orders of the ITAT as on a bare consideration

M/S SUSHMA BUILDTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CPC/DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return.

disallowance made was sustained by Addl. Commissioner on account of the fact that the Amendments carried out by Finance Act 2021 in Sections 36(1)(va) and Sec. 43B were considered to be clarificatory, hence retrospective in nature. The said view has consistently been held to be incorrect by various orders of the ITAT as on a bare consideration