SURESH KUMAR YOGINDER KUMAR, TIMBER MARKET 2692-1-2 ,AMBALA CANTT vs. NFAC DELHI JURISDITIONAL OFFICER ITO WARD 4 AMBALA, AMBALA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

section 142(1) of the Act were issued on\n27/01/2020 and 12/02/2021 through email / e filing portal.\n2.6\nThe notice were duly served on the assessee's registered email id.\n2.7\nThat in response to above notice(s), the assessee has uploaded copy of ITR,\ncomputation of income, P&L Account, Balance Sheet other requisite documents\nthrough e-proceedings

EASTMAN INTERNATIONAL,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallow the deduction but increased the taxable income by the additions under Sections 68 and 41(1). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41,81,599/- as principal ignoring the fact that out of the total disallowance, the amount of Rs.25,85,31,574/- is the amount of principal and the balance amount of Rs.2,56,50,025/- is the interest portion which has already been disallowed separately by the AO. 2. Ground Number 1 is general. 3. So far as regards Ground

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with the manufacturing of goods, refund of excise duty has to be treated as income derived from eligible business as provided under section 80IB. 4.10 We do not find any variance

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with the manufacturing of goods, refund of excise duty has to be treated as income derived from eligible business as provided under section 80IB. 4.10 We do not find any variance

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with the manufacturing of goods, refund of excise duty has to be treated as income derived from eligible business as provided under section 80IB. 4.10 We do not find any variance

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with the manufacturing of goods, refund of excise duty has to be treated as income derived from eligible business as provided under section 80IB. 4.10 We do not find any variance

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with the manufacturing of goods, refund of excise duty has to be treated as income derived from eligible business as provided under section 80IB. 4.10 We do not find any variance

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit (eligible unit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit (eligible unit

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit (eligible unit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit (eligible unit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit (eligible unit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit (eligible unit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit (eligible unit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit (eligible unit

THE SHAHABAD COOP. SUGAR MILLS,SHAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 11/03/2018 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order, Before This Tribunal In Form No. 36 Has Interalia Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

41,178/- is hereby disallowed and added back to the income returned by the assessee society." Since the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has confirmed the addition on this issue in the appellant's case in earlier year as stated by the A.O. in his order, I confirm the said addition. This ground of appeal is dismissed

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest