DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

3) to Section 13. Hence, payments\ngiven to these two individuals namely, Kalpana Thakur and\nShubhdeep have been disallowed. Similarly, he further\nfound that assessee Society has purchased luxury vehicles,\ntherefore, he disallowed 50% of Vehicles Expenses and\ndetermined the taxable income of the assessee. The\ncomputation made by the AO on conclusion of the\nassessment order read as under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. M/S JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

section 69A, hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are to be initiated, which are being initiated separately. (Addition: Rs. 36,75,23,049-/) 22. Feeling aggrieved with the finding of the Assessing Officer the Assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has granted 22 the relief to the assessee. The finding

JAMNA DASS NIKKAMAL JAIN SARAF PRIVATE LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

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

section 69A, hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are to be initiated, which are being initiated separately. (Addition: Rs. 36,75,23,049-/) 22. Feeling aggrieved with the finding of the Assessing Officer the Assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has granted 22 the relief to the assessee. The finding

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

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

disallowance when books of account have not been rejected under section 145(3). O. The addition of 50% of purchases on an ad-hoc basis was challenged as arbitrary and unsustainable since the books of account were not rejected and no material evidence of bogus transactions was brought on record. P. It was argued that sales declared by the assessee

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

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

35. In case of RMG Polyvinyl Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under: “5. As it transpired subsequently there were at least two glaring errors in the above reasons. The first error was that the AO proceeded on the basis that "no return of income is available in the AST database of Income-tax Department

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 made by the AO of weighted deduction of Rs. 11,44,84,484/- claimed by the assessee under section 35(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act holding that Dera Bassi plant is not engaged in 'scientific research' as required in section 35(1)(i) of the Act. ITA 350/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 3

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

3). The reason for reopening the assessment was that in the absence of particulars it could not be said that no part of the borrowed fund had been used for investment from which the income generated was exempt under section 10(33) and that the assessee might have incurred expenditure for earning the dividend income such as proportionate salary, telephone

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

disallowance of Rs. 71,950/- on account of payment exceeding the limit specified u/s 40A(3). The ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order has given his findings as under:- “The AO in the assessment order has stated that the payments of Rs. 71,950/- in excess of limits specified u/s 40A(3) of the Act were made

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

disallowance of Rs. 71,950/- on account of payment exceeding the limit specified u/s 40A(3). The ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order has given his findings as under:- “The AO in the assessment order has stated that the payments of Rs. 71,950/- in excess of limits specified u/s 40A(3) of the Act were made

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

disallowance of Rs. 71,950/- on account of payment exceeding the limit specified u/s 40A(3). The ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order has given his findings as under:- “The AO in the assessment order has stated that the payments of Rs. 71,950/- in excess of limits specified u/s 40A(3) of the Act were made

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

disallowance of Rs. 71,950/- on account of payment exceeding the limit specified u/s 40A(3). The ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order has given his findings as under:- “The AO in the assessment order has stated that the payments of Rs. 71,950/- in excess of limits specified u/s 40A(3) of the Act were made

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

disallowance of Rs. 71,950/- on account of payment exceeding the limit specified u/s 40A(3). The ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order has given his findings as under:- “The AO in the assessment order has stated that the payments of Rs. 71,950/- in excess of limits specified u/s 40A(3) of the Act were made

SHRI MUNISH ARORA,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

disallowance of Rs. 71,950/- on account of payment exceeding the limit specified u/s 40A(3). The ld. CIT(A) in the appeal order has given his findings as under:- “The AO in the assessment order has stated that the payments of Rs. 71,950/- in excess of limits specified u/s 40A(3) of the Act were made

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

3) of the Income Tax Act. The firm claimed that these were payments to transporters, which have a higher permissible limit. However, the AO found that these payments were actually for retail purchases and not transportation, and the firm could not prove otherwise. Therefore, this disallowance was also confirmed. Additionally, the AO had disallowed Rs.10,24,000/- worth of cash

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

35,000 9,60,000 8,80,000 10,93,225 10,80,000 5,66,129 15,24,194 Singh Sukhpreet Singh 97,500 7,80,000 7,15,000 8,98,225 9,00,000 4,05,000 Surinder Singh 3,99,193 9,00,000 8,85,000 10,80,000 Mandeep kaur 3,80,000 3

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

35,000 9,60,000 8,80,000 10,93,225 10,80,000 5,66,129 15,24,194 Singh Sukhpreet Singh 97,500 7,80,000 7,15,000 8,98,225 9,00,000 4,05,000 Surinder Singh 3,99,193 9,00,000 8,85,000 10,80,000 Mandeep kaur 3,80,000 3

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHIVA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHRI GURU GOBIND SINGH FOUNDATION, MOGA

In the result all the above appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

disallowance was made in earlier years although the assessments in earlier years were also completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Under such circumstances, the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption of Rs.l,97,39,9527- in this case claimed by the appellant society under section 11(1) of the Act cannot be said to be justified