SH. JAI TEG SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptashri Jai Teg Singh, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, # 2431, Sector 79, Ward-6(2), Mohali. Mohali. Pan: Arjps5960R

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

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

section 40A(2)(b) in his show cause notice to the assessee to which due reply had been filed by the assessee after considering which no disallowance had been made. He therefore contended that this finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the principle of consistency did not apply was not based on proper appreciation of facts before

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(3) of the Act; that therefore, the assessment order was an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, which was rightly set aside by the ld. PCIT, remitting the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. 9.5. The first issue is as to whether it is a case of lack of enquiry, as held

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

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

40A(3) of the Act; that therefore, the assessment order was an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, which was rightly set aside by the ld. PCIT, remitting the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. 9.5. The first issue is as to whether it is a case of lack of enquiry, as held

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

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

40A(3) of the Act; that therefore, the assessment order was an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, which was rightly set aside by the ld. PCIT, remitting the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. 9.5. The first issue is as to whether it is a case of lack of enquiry, as held

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 20% of the interest payments made to the persons covered under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Now, the assessee is in appeal. 7

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)

40A(3) are not applicable in the case of appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed a sum of Rs. 67,500 being 1/3rd of car expenses of Rs. 202,500 incurred, actually paid and claimed by the appellant on flimsy grounds without properly appreciating the details

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. 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

B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आदेश/ORDER Per Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh, [in short the ‘Ld.Pr.CIT’] dated 26.03.2021 pertaining to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Briefly, the facts

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 40A(2)(b) is against the provisions of the Act. Even so keeping in view the market condition since the monies have to be raised at a faster pace, payment of 1% excess interest cannot be said to be unreasonable and hence the addition made is hereby deleted. 5.5 As a result, appeal of the Revenue on this ground

KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 40A(2)(b) is against the provisions of the Act. Even so keeping in view the market condition since the monies have to be raised at a faster pace, payment of 1% excess interest cannot be said to be unreasonable and hence the addition made is hereby deleted. 5.5 As a result, appeal of the Revenue on this ground

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)

7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(Appeals). 8. We have heard the rival contentions and after perusing the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) we find merit in the contentions raised by Ld. counsel for assessee. The fact of availability of own interest free funds in the form of profits

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

disallowed the sum of Rs.82,89,576/- under the provisions of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act. The Ground of Appeal No.2 is dismissed. 4.2 Referring to the same ,Ld. DR contended that the assesses explanation for fall in G.P was totally unfounded and not supported by facts as pointed out by the Ld.CIT(A) so also the assesses