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 40(a)(ia). Thus, in the light of aforesaid decision, we hold that no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

disallowance of Rs. 90,20,655 under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

40(a)(ia): Disallowed 30% of Rs. 19,27,329 paid as interest to six ex-employees without TDS, as required under Chapter XVII-B. The appellant argued the payments were salary-related, but the Commissioner upheld the disallowance, confirming Section

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 40(a)(ia), the AO disallowed the entire amount of Rs . 2,24,305 under the said section. 4.2 Further

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

Section 36(1) (iii). In para 4 the AO made disallowance of interest u/s 14A at Rs. 141510213/- , in para 6 made disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) at Rs. 40

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

Section 40- A (3) only empowers the assessing officer to disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which

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 of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to pay channels

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 of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to pay channels

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 of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to pay channels

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 of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to pay channels

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 of Rs. 37,25,543/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to pay channels

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deposit of tax deducted at source within the prescribed

SH. RANA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

40(a)(ia) brought in by the Finance Act, 2014, only 30% of any sum payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid on or before due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act can be disallowed

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the\nappeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 36(1) (iii). In para 4 the AO made disallowance of interest\nu/s 14A at Rs. 141510213/-, in para 6 made disallowance of interest u/s\n36(1)(iii) at Rs. 40

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowance made of Rs. 1,86,96,356/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the AO holding that the assessee has failed the mandatory condition of submission of Form 26A to ; the Director General of Income Tax (System) through due procedure as prescribed in section

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)

disallowable under section 40(a)(ia)of the Act and this was one of the reason recorded before issuance of notice

M/S BARNALA BUILDERS AND CONSULTANT,ZIRAKPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT (CEN)-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

ARVINDER PAUL JIT SINGH GILL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance