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

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

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)

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and making disallowance ignoring the stand taken by the assessee. As per ground no. 3 the amended provisions of Rule 8D, effective from 02/06/2016 have been misapplied. 14.1 The AO disallowed a net amount of Rs. 17,98,15,974/- after deducting suo- moto disallowance

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)

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and making disallowance ignoring the stand taken by the assessee. As per ground no. 3 the amended provisions of Rule 8D, effective from 02/06/2016 have been misapplied. 14.1 The AO disallowed a net amount of Rs. 17,98,15,974/- after deducting suo- moto disallowance

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)

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and making disallowance ignoring the stand taken by the assessee. As per ground no. 3 the amended provisions of Rule 8D, effective from 02/06/2016 have been misapplied. 14.1 The AO disallowed a net amount of Rs. 17,98,15,974/- after deducting suo- moto disallowance

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)

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and making disallowance ignoring the stand taken by the assessee. As per ground no. 3 the amended provisions of Rule 8D, effective from 02/06/2016 have been misapplied. 14.1 The AO disallowed a net amount of Rs. 17,98,15,974/- after deducting suo- moto disallowance

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)

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and making disallowance ignoring the stand taken by the assessee. As per ground no. 3 the amended provisions of Rule 8D, effective from 02/06/2016 have been misapplied. 14.1 The AO disallowed a net amount of Rs. 17,98,15,974/- after deducting suo- moto disallowance

TARSEM CHAND RANA,UNA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, ITO WARD 98, UNA, RANGE CODE 37, UNA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1085/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Tarsem Singh Rana, Ito, बनाम H.No. 4, Kathoh, Ward 98, Khurwain, Una Vs. Bangana H.P. 174321 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aawpr5715R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Kumar Jha, Advocate (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr

disallow the employee contribution of Rs. 8,87,438/- under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, with reference to Sections

TDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MOHALI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-6(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

disallow the delay deposit in contradiction of section 438. The disallowance is not even allowed in the next assessment year

TDS PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

disallow the delay deposit in contradiction of section 438. The disallowance is not even allowed in the next assessment year

TDS PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

disallow the delay deposit in contradiction of section 438. The disallowance is not even allowed in the next assessment year

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

disallowing the depreciation of such building would result in double taxation. 6.9 It was submitted that as the assessee has duly paid tax on all such amount of surrender made by the assessee, therefore, making additions of the same amount to the total income of the assessee are wholly invalid as it results 'double taxation and therefore, against the principles

NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1554/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Nahar Industrial Enterprises The Acit, Circle-7, बनाम Limited, Focal Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Ludhiana Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana Tan No: Aaccn3563A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

438/- under section 115JB of the Act inter alia making addition of Rs. 60,86,81,068/- on account of repurchase of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB). The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee partly allowed the appeal and held that out of Rs. 60.83 crore an amount

THE TRIBUNE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahay

Section 2(15) of the Act whereby returned loss of Rs. 8,73,15,662/- was disallowed and an income of Rs. 23,77,41,089/- has been assessed which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer whereby she treated the assessee

THE TRIBUNE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahay

Section 2(15) of the Act whereby returned loss of Rs. 8,73,15,662/- was disallowed and an income of Rs. 23,77,41,089/- has been assessed which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer whereby she treated the assessee