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)

disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that all the necessary conditions for claiming the deduction specified under section 35(1) have been fulfilled and hence the assessee is eligible for claiming the deduction. (iii

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

iii) to section 271(1) reveals that as per the relevant provisions, the Assessing officer may direct a person who as per clause (c) has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to pay by way of penalty, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount

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

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

35,875/- - Rs. 6,33,212/- = Rs. 2,02,663/-) is disallowed and added back to the taxable income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. D) Disallowance of Interest u/s 36(l)(iii) on Share Application Money:- On the details has submitted by the assessee

ACIT, C-6, LUDHIANA vs. MAJESTIC HOTELS LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

35,30,153/-. The assessee was asked to explain why interest expenditure relating to investment in Macro Dairy Venture (P) Ltd. (supra) not be disallowed by invoking the provisions u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In response to the same, the assessee submitted its reply which was considered but not accepted

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

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

iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on indirect benefits A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2010-11: Ground

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

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

iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on indirect benefits A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2010-11: Ground

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

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

iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on indirect benefits A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2010-11: Ground

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

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

iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on indirect benefits A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2010-11: Ground

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

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

iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on indirect benefits A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2010-11: Ground

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

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

iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on indirect benefits A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2010-11: Ground

SANJEEV KUMAR KATHURIA,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,09,560/-. 4. Subsequently, the assessment records were called for and examined by the Ld. PCIT, Panchkula and a show cause under section 263 dt. 12/12/2023 was issued by the Ld. PCIT and the contents thereof read as under: “Perusal of assessment record reveals that you had sold

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

35,030/- 3,74,047/- Total 8,61,473/- 3.5 Accordingly, interest amounting Rs.8,61,473/- debited in Profit and Loss account is disallowed u/s 36(l)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 being fund used for non business purpose. Accordingly, interest expenses debited in Profit and loss account amounting Rs. 8,61,473/- is disallowed and added back

SH. SOURABH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(3), LUDHIANA

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

1)(iii) of the Act by 5 A.Y.2012-13 recording reasons to this effect but after obtaining reply from the assessee no disallowance was made. Our attention was drawn to the reply filed to the A.O. in the course of re- assessment proceedings for assessment year 2010-11, placed at Paper Book page Nos.30 to 35, more specifically to the facts