ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

34. Ground of appeal N.5 raised by the Revenue reads as under: “5. "Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.16,36,199/- made by the A.O. on deduction u/s 80IC on job work charges by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

34. Ground of appeal N.5 raised by the Revenue reads as under: “5. "Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.16,36,199/- made by the A.O. on deduction u/s 80IC on job work charges by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

34. Ground of appeal N.5 raised by the Revenue reads as under: “5. "Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.16,36,199/- made by the A.O. on deduction u/s 80IC on job work charges by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

34. Ground of appeal N.5 raised by the Revenue reads as under: “5. "Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.16,36,199/- made by the A.O. on deduction u/s 80IC on job work charges by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

34. Ground of appeal N.5 raised by the Revenue reads as under: “5. "Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.16,36,199/- made by the A.O. on deduction u/s 80IC on job work charges by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

34. Ground of appeal N.5 raised by the Revenue reads as under: “5. "Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.16,36,199/- made by the A.O. on deduction u/s 80IC on job work charges by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, PANCHKULA

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

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

section 10(34) and thus disallowable under section 14A. 5. Against the order of the AO the ASSESSEE went in appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, PANCHKULA

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

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

section 10(34) and thus disallowable under section 14A. 5. Against the order of the AO the ASSESSEE went in appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, PANCHKULA

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

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

section 10(34) and thus disallowable under section 14A. 5. Against the order of the AO the ASSESSEE went in appeal

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. After considering submissions of assessee the Assessing Officer was not convinced and proportionately capitalized interest thereby making addition of Rs.4,06,900/-. Both sides are unanimous in stating that the issue raised by the assessee in ground no.5 of appeal is identical to the 8 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016

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)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. After considering submissions of assessee the Assessing Officer was not convinced and proportionately capitalized interest thereby making addition of Rs.4,06,900/-. Both sides are unanimous in stating that the issue raised by the assessee in ground no.5 of appeal is identical to the 8 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016

ITO, W-2, BARNALA vs. THE TRUCK OPERATOR UNION, BARNALA

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

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthe Ito बनाम The Truck Operator Union, Ward-2, Barnala Dhanaula Road, Barnala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaat6497M

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from undisclosed sources, The terms

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, MANIMAJRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the

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

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as made by the AO and as sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The facts, mutatis-mutandis, are admittedly exactly similar for the year under consideration to those present in assessment year 2014-15, decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee vide order (supra) dated 12.04.2024, a copy whereof has been

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., PANCHKULA

In the result, we upheld the

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act vide order dt. 31/12/2023 wherein the reassessed income was determined at Rs. 2,54,79,04,707/- as against original assessed income of Rs. 1,56,95,34,890/-. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since deleted the said addition and against

RAMJEE CONCRETES PVT.LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 205/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, The Ito, बनाम #1238.Sector 91, Ward 6(3), Mohali, Punjab Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aafcr9457E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowable expenditure under Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. Ms. Linhares was unable to state whether the Revenue has appealed this decision. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate submitted that his research did not suggest that any appeal was instituted by the Revenue against this decision, which is directly on the point and favours the Assessee. 31. Mr. Ramani

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

34,74,448/- was arrived at. In view of the above discussion and that the assessee has not proved with evidence the justification about the consultancy services availed and that the said payment was wholly and exclusively for business purposes, the said amount of consultancy expenses of Rs. 34,74,448/- is disallowed and added back to the total income

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 35(2) of the Income Tax Act. 4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.17,34

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

section 14 of the Act read Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is deleted. The aforesaid order has been followed by the ITAT in the Assessment Year's i.e. 2009-10 and 2011-12, we, therefore do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) who rightly deleted the disallowance made

M/S FREAKING AMAZING FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 1(3),, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Itr.

34,303/- u/s 36(1) (va) (Employer share of contribution) of the Act even when the appellant company deposited whole of such amount on or before the due date of filing of ITR and even otherwise the same was covered u/s 43B and not u/s 36(1) (va). 4. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy