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)

2) and 142(1) were issued alongwith questionnaire, and after taking into consideration the submission filed by the assessee and carrying out the necessary verification/ examination, the assessment proceedings were completed under section 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) &143(3B) of the Act, wherein the assessed income was determined at Rs. 88,44,429/- after making the disallowance under section

A.K.MULTIMETALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, MANDI GOBIND GARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act’ ). The AO observed that the replies submitted by the assessee revealed that no justification along with documentary evidence have been provided, which could substantiate the rationale of these payments. He, therefore, disallowed

M/S LOTUS MACHINES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-1(2), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section which gives him power to disallow the excessive & unreasonable portion is sec 40A(2)(a). The relevant extract of this sec is under " Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been or is to be made to any person referred to in clause (b

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, the assessment order was treated as erroneous and ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 32 prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue . The Tribunal quashed the revisional order and restored the order of the AO, following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in “Rajal Enterprises

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, the assessment order was treated as erroneous and ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 32 prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue . The Tribunal quashed the revisional order and restored the order of the AO, following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in “Rajal Enterprises

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, the assessment order was treated as erroneous and ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 32 prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue . The Tribunal quashed the revisional order and restored the order of the AO, following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in “Rajal Enterprises

ADITYA STEEL & AGRO INDUSTRIES,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, GOBINDGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowances made by the AO with the aid of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act out of interest

SH. SUNIL KHULLAR,SAMRALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavi.T.A. No.137/Chandi/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sunil Khullar........................... ………................……............…..….. Appellant C/O Sat Parkash & Company, Ward No.7, H.No.10, Kang Mohalla, Samrala. [Pan:Azqpk0380E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-Khanna....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. S. Bhasin, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2022 Order

disallowance under section 40A(3) and in further enhancing the same by Rs.16,47,597/-. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment ought to have been made by estimating the income after invoking section 145(3) when the books were found to be incomplete and incorrect, rather than making superfluously inflated additions

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Department’s appeal in for assessment year

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

disallowed the payments under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. While doing so, the AO observed as follows : "2.6 The provisions of section 195 are applicable to all payees whether individual or of any other status who are covered under the definition of nonresident as per section 6 of the Income Tax Act. Under this section there is no threshold

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

40A(2) of the Act, as the two provisions are not in pari materia. Qualifications, experience, status, and other traits of a specified person rendering services to the trust are relevant factors to determine the reasonableness of payment of salary or allowance and not merely the market value of the services rendered by him. Further, a specified person serves

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

40A(2) of the Act, as the two provisions are not in pari materia. Qualifications, experience, status, and other traits of a specified person rendering services to the trust are relevant factors to determine the reasonableness of payment of salary or allowance and not merely the market value of the services rendered by him. Further, a specified person serves

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

40A(2) of the Act, as the two provisions are not in pari materia. Qualifications, experience, status, and other traits of a specified person rendering services to the trust are relevant factors to determine the reasonableness of payment of salary or allowance and not merely the market value of the services rendered by him. Further, a specified person serves

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

40A(2) of the Act, as the two provisions are not in pari materia. Qualifications, experience, status, and other traits of a specified person rendering services to the trust are relevant factors to determine the reasonableness of payment of salary or allowance and not merely the market value of the services rendered by him. Further, a specified person serves

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

40A(2) of the Act, as the two provisions are not in pari materia. Qualifications, experience, status, and other traits of a specified person rendering services to the trust are relevant factors to determine the reasonableness of payment of salary or allowance and not merely the market value of the services rendered by him. Further, a specified person serves

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

40A(2) of the Act, as the two provisions are not in pari materia. Qualifications, experience, status, and other traits of a specified person rendering services to the trust are relevant factors to determine the reasonableness of payment of salary or allowance and not merely the market value of the services rendered by him. Further, a specified person serves

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

40A(2) of the Act, as the two provisions are not in pari materia. Qualifications, experience, status, and other traits of a specified person rendering services to the trust are relevant factors to determine the reasonableness of payment of salary or allowance and not merely the market value of the services rendered by him. Further, a specified person serves