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

9. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(Appeals) and emphasized that no benefit can be derived by the assessee from the decisions relied upon by it since they were rendered in the context of Rule 6DD(j) of the Income Tax Rules, read alongwith section 40A(3) of the Act, which

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 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)

9. Now I will deal with the issue of disallowance of Rs.16,33,037/- under Section 40A(3). The AO observed

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

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

Section 40A(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been examined. Therefore, AO has not carried out proper investigation and enquiry to unearth the facts involved in the case which should have been made. 9. In response, the assessee submitted reply, which has been reproduced at pages 2 to 4 of the impugned order. The assessee stated, inter

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

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

Section 40A(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been examined. Therefore, AO has not carried out proper investigation and enquiry to unearth the facts involved in the case which should have been made. 9. In response, the assessee submitted reply, which has been reproduced at pages 2 to 4 of the impugned order. The assessee stated, inter

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

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

Section 40A(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been examined. Therefore, AO has not carried out proper investigation and enquiry to unearth the facts involved in the case which should have been made. 9. In response, the assessee submitted reply, which has been reproduced at pages 2 to 4 of the impugned order. The assessee stated, inter

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

40A(3) of the l.T.Act, 1961. And to avoid any disallowance, he has submitted fictitious documents (Ikrarnama) before the Assessing Officer claiming that the property of the father has been sold. As the AO has failed to consider this the order issued by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee

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

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

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)

section 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

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)

9-11 of the order. I do not find any infirmity in the computation made by the Assessing Officer and accordingly confirm the disallowance of Rs.3,98,008/- made u/s 14A of the IT Act.” 12. Before us, the Ld. AR reiterated the contentions made before the CIT(Appeals) regarding sufficiency of own surplus funds available with the assessee

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)

disallowance for AY 2016–17, we direct the AO to consider the assessee’s claim for deduction of Rs.82,78,750/- in AY 2017–18, if otherwise found in order, in accordance with the provisions of Section 43B of the Act. 5 9. In the result, Ground No. 2 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, this