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

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

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

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

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

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

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

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

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

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

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

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

section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by simply relying on the submissions of the assessee and not by giving any independent findings? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,43,718/- u/s 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 on job work charges

ITO, W-2, BARNALA vs. THE TRUCK OPERATOR UNION, BARNALA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthe Ito बनाम The Truck Operator Union, Ward-2, Barnala Dhanaula Road, Barnala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaat6497M

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from undisclosed sources, The terms

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AVON CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Circle-5, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R & C.O.No.6/Chd/2016 In M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs. The A.C.I.T., G.T. Road, Circle-5, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of interest made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) amounting to Rs.14,42

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., PANCHKULA

In the result, we upheld the

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

42,84,338/- should have been capitalized. However the assessee has only capitalized a sum of Rs. 25,69,31,741/-, hence the difference amount of Rs. 17,73,52,597/- was disallowed under section

RAMJEE CONCRETES PVT.LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 205/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, The Ito, बनाम #1238.Sector 91, Ward 6(3), Mohali, Punjab Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aafcr9457E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowable expenditure under Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. Ms. Linhares was unable to state whether the Revenue has appealed this decision. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate submitted that his research did not suggest that any appeal was instituted by the Revenue against this decision, which is directly on the point and favours the Assessee. 31. Mr. Ramani

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, PANCHKULA

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance in that case was because the goods stored belonged to the assessee, while in the present case, third-party storage was involved. 8.1 The next issue arising for consideration pertains to the allowability of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of dividend and interest income earned by the assessee from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, PANCHKULA

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance in that case was because the goods stored belonged to the assessee, while in the present case, third-party storage was involved. 8.1 The next issue arising for consideration pertains to the allowability of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of dividend and interest income earned by the assessee from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, PANCHKULA

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance in that case was because the goods stored belonged to the assessee, while in the present case, third-party storage was involved. 8.1 The next issue arising for consideration pertains to the allowability of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of dividend and interest income earned by the assessee from

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

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

42,492/- should have been disallowed as/bogus purchases']and also the observation that "assessee has made cash purchases from open market as the sales have been confirmed; However AO has failed to acknowledge this fact and no disallowance were made as per provision of section

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

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

42,492/- should have been disallowed as/bogus purchases']and also the observation that "assessee has made cash purchases from open market as the sales have been confirmed; However AO has failed to acknowledge this fact and no disallowance were made as per provision of section

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

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

42,492/- should have been disallowed as/bogus purchases']and also the observation that "assessee has made cash purchases from open market as the sales have been confirmed; However AO has failed to acknowledge this fact and no disallowance were made as per provision of section

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

disallowance of interest by invoking provisions of section 36(l)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the assessee company has paid share application money allegedly out of borrowed funds is directed to be deleted on the basis of same reasoning and logic as adopted by the Honourable Apex Court and Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court while deleting

M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs.14,15,10,213/-, the calculations are given at page no. 22 & 23 of the aforesaid assessment order. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submission which have been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 6 to 42