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)

275/-, thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148 dated 26.06.2015. In response, the assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148.In addition to hotel business and other sources

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)

275/-, thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148 dated 26.06.2015. In response, the assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148.In addition to hotel business and other sources

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)

275/-, thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148 dated 26.06.2015. In response, the assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148.In addition to hotel business and other sources

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)

275/-, thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148 dated 26.06.2015. In response, the assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148.In addition to hotel business and other sources

SMT. SHWETA JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

275 of the Act in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading

M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

275 of the Act in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading

SMT. VANI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

275 of the Act in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading

M/S SEL TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, theappeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.695/Chd/2018 धििागरणवर्ग / Assessment Year :2014-15 बिाम M/S Sel Textiles Limited, The Dcit, 273-74,G.T. Road, Central Circle-Iii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aancs0401M अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent धििागररतीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राजस्वकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Ram Mohan, Cit Dr सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 उदघोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg:

275 of the Act in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading

ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA vs. M/S FRANKLIN LABORATORIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1230/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

275/- in this case on account of disallowance out of interest expenses by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground

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

M/S KUDU INDUSTRIES,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarm/S Kudu Industries Vs. The Acit A-15, Phase Vii Circle I Focal Point Ludhiana Ludhiana

275/-12 5. In view of the above, it is submitted that in case Bright Enterprise decision is considered for giving relief to the assessee w.r.t. advances given to sister concern, then it is requested that the ratio of this decision may also be applied to disallowance w.r.t. CWIP and that the matter may be remanded back

THE HP STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING & CONSUMERS FEDERATION LIMITED,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

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

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

disallowance of an amount of Rs. 22,93,002/- towards so called expenditure which may have incurred on the income earned on dividend that also non observing the prescribed procedures for providing ample opportunity and within the tie limit provisions of section 275

M/S IOL CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, R-I, LUDHIANA

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

disallowance of Rs. 26,81,157/- made by the A.O. under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29/09/2011 declaring loss of Rs. 26,41,16,886/- under the normal provisions

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowance of gratuity payment has not been provided; (v) The computation of tax demand arrived at Rs.91,49,290/- as per notice of demand under section 156 is not provided. 1. Deviation from consistency by the Learned AO 1.4 This action of the Learned AO, completely violates the principles of consistency, appreciated by the Hon'ble Courts in various decisions

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowance of gratuity payment has not been provided; (v) The computation of tax demand arrived at Rs.91,49,290/- as per notice of demand under section 156 is not provided. 1. Deviation from consistency by the Learned AO 1.4 This action of the Learned AO, completely violates the principles of consistency, appreciated by the Hon'ble Courts in various decisions

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowance of gratuity payment has not been provided; (v) The computation of tax demand arrived at Rs.91,49,290/- as per notice of demand under section 156 is not provided. 1. Deviation from consistency by the Learned AO 1.4 This action of the Learned AO, completely violates the principles of consistency, appreciated by the Hon'ble Courts in various decisions

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowance of gratuity payment has not been provided; (v) The computation of tax demand arrived at Rs.91,49,290/- as per notice of demand under section 156 is not provided. 1. Deviation from consistency by the Learned AO 1.4 This action of the Learned AO, completely violates the principles of consistency, appreciated by the Hon'ble Courts in various decisions