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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 40A(3) is upheld.In the result, this ground raised by the Assessee is dismissed. 18. Concerning the disallowance of Rs.10,24,000/- on account of unverifiable purchases, the Ld. AR submitted that the disallowance is unwarranted as the assessee had duly furnished vouchers in support of the purchases in question. In contrast, the Ld. DR relied on the findings

M/S YASHODHA MOTORS PVT. LTD.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1601/Chd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

disallowance of interest and applicability of Section 40A(2) to the facts of the case in hand. The conclusions drawn by the AO are found as per law and hence liable to be upheld. The AO has given the basis for adopting the fair market value of the interest (5

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)

5 times a month, with each payment kept below Rs.10,000. According to the Assessing Officer, the pattern of payments appeared to be structured in a manner to avoid the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO further held that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily justify the reason for making salary and wage payments in cash

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

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

disallowance were made as per provision of section 40A(3) of the Act" are factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to evidence on record; and in any case is vague, based on surmiseful considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further

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

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

disallowance were made as per provision of section 40A(3) of the Act" are factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to evidence on record; and in any case is vague, based on surmiseful considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further

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

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

disallowance were made as per provision of section 40A(3) of the Act" are factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to evidence on record; and in any case is vague, based on surmiseful considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further

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

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

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 any independent findings?" 35. The above ground of appeal is regarding disallowance

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

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

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 any independent findings?" 35. The above ground of appeal is regarding disallowance

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

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

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 any independent findings?" 35. The above ground of appeal is regarding disallowance

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

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

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 any independent findings?" 35. The above ground of appeal is regarding disallowance

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

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

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 any independent findings?" 35. The above ground of appeal is regarding disallowance

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

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

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 any independent findings?" 35. The above ground of appeal is regarding disallowance

SH. SHER SINGH RANA,SOLAN vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआदेश/Order

5 A.Y.2016-17 that the liability of Rana Wines was made in cash by the assessee during F.Y. 2015-16 and these payments were in contravention to provisions of section 40A(3) of the l.T.Act, 1961. And to avoid any disallowance

M/S METALMAN AUTO PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Metalman Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Addl.C.I.T., E-127, Phase-V, Range-1, Focal Point, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabcm5441M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40A(3). In response, the assessee submitted that the company was purchasing diesel from a regular retail outlet, which was accepting payments by cheque. However, it was only in the event of non availability of diesel at the said out let that it purchased diesel from other outlet to whom payment had to be made in cash only