SH. JAI TEG SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptashri Jai Teg Singh, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, # 2431, Sector 79, Ward-6(2), Mohali. Mohali. Pan: Arjps5960R

section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD(j) as applicable in that assessment year. Hon'ble P&H High Court while holding the payments cannot be disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act made the following observation in the same judgement. ITA No No.750/Chd/2017 4 A.Y. 2012-13 "15) We pronounced the judgment in open court on the conclusion

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

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 , 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

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

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

disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure

SH. RANA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

Section 40(a)(ia) whereby it is provided that 30% of any sum payable to a resident shall be disallowed if tax is not deducted at source under Ch. XVIIB as against the 100% disallowance presently made. The purpose of this amendment was explained in the memorandum as under:- "the disallowance of whole of the amount of expenditure results into

ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

section 133A was conducted on 15/09/2016 at the business premises of the assessee and no document related to wages record was found and that the large number of bills & blank bill books of various parties were found which were impounded. The A.O. asked the assessee to provide the details of jobs done and provide site wise material consumption

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

Bench: Final Hearing.

293 Taxman 141 (SC).. In respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no addition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A 2. Addition on account of cash found Rs 11,150007- The brief fact of this issue is that a cash

M/S PIONEER PESTICIDES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Pioneer Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco 82-83, Sector 8-C, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh

disallowance @ 10.30% (on average cost of debts) amounting to Rs. 1,34,215/- invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessing officer issued show cause notice dated

THE LUDHIANA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, LUDHIANA

disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act amounting to Rs.49,90,022 adding the same to the income of the assessee. 4. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who upheld the order of the A.O. stating that the assessee had paid more interest to Milkfed than earned interest therefrom

SH.ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing a sum of Rs 5,40,364/- as evident from the assessment order and the contents thereof read as under: 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54 at Rs.2,01,09,761/- for which the assessee submitted a claim of revising it to Rs.2

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee's appeal on the various grounds raised\nis dismissed

293 Тахтan 141 (SC).\nIn respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no\naddition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any\nincriminating material found during course of search under section\n132 or requisition under section 132A\n2. Addition on account of cash found Rs 11,150007-\nThe brief fact of this issue is that a cash of Rs.41.15 lacs

M/S K.LALL OVERSEAS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

293, Industrial Area-A, Circle-6, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AABFK5507D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Kumar, CA & Shri Bhavesh Jindal, CA राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 04.04.2022 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 आदेश/Order

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S K LAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

293, Industrial Area-A, Circle-6, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AABFK5507D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Kumar, CA & Shri Bhavesh Jindal, CA राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 04.04.2022 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 आदेश/Order

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f. 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources" after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex