HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

46), the Appellant's receipts are\nnot liable to tax. Its activities are inherently charitable, and the cess received\nforms part of corpus funds dedicated to public welfare. Accordingly, no part of\nits income can be brought to tax under the Act.\n\n3 Whether reassessment on account of revision under section 263 is bad in law\nand liable

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

46), the Appellant's receipts are\nnot liable to tax. Its activities are inherently charitable, and the cess received\nforms part of corpus funds dedicated to public welfare. Accordingly, no part of\nits income can be brought to tax under the Act.\n\n3 Whether reassessment on account of revision under section 263 is bad in law\nand liable

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

46,685/-which on the facts of the case is allowable as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above. In view of the above, it is therefore prayed that the interest relating to advance to these parties may not be disallowed. To this extent the disallowance made in the computation of taxable income may be rectified

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

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

46,40,472/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an amount of Rs. 7.58 Lacs under Rule 8D(3)i.e; half percent of the average value of the investment. 9.10 The Ld. DR submitted the following arguments: Arguments of Department on disallowance of expenditure u/s 14 A rw rule 8 D: 1. S. 14A has been amended by introduction

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

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

46,40,472/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an amount of Rs. 7.58 Lacs under Rule 8D(3)i.e; half percent of the average value of the investment. 9.10 The Ld. DR submitted the following arguments: Arguments of Department on disallowance of expenditure u/s 14 A rw rule 8 D: 1. S. 14A has been amended by introduction

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

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

46,40,472/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an amount of Rs. 7.58 Lacs under Rule 8D(3)i.e; half percent of the average value of the investment. 9.10 The Ld. DR submitted the following arguments: Arguments of Department on disallowance of expenditure u/s 14 A rw rule 8 D: 1. S. 14A has been amended by introduction

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

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

46,40,472/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an amount of Rs. 7.58 Lacs under Rule 8D(3)i.e; half percent of the average value of the investment. 9.10 The Ld. DR submitted the following arguments: Arguments of Department on disallowance of expenditure u/s 14 A rw rule 8 D: 1. S. 14A has been amended by introduction

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

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

46,40,472/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an amount of Rs. 7.58 Lacs under Rule 8D(3)i.e; half percent of the average value of the investment. 9.10 The Ld. DR submitted the following arguments: Arguments of Department on disallowance of expenditure u/s 14 A rw rule 8 D: 1. S. 14A has been amended by introduction

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

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

46,40,472/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an amount of Rs. 7.58 Lacs under Rule 8D(3)i.e; half percent of the average value of the investment. 9.10 The Ld. DR submitted the following arguments: Arguments of Department on disallowance of expenditure u/s 14 A rw rule 8 D: 1. S. 14A has been amended by introduction

M/S BARNALA BUILDERS AND CONSULTANT,ZIRAKPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT (CEN)-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(1) dt. 19/11/2019 was passed wherein the disallowance Rs. 2,46,952/- invoking the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) was made

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

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

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

disallowance made under section 14A r/w rule 8D of the Income tax Rules. 1.1 The appellant corporation held following investments as on 31.03.2017; SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) 1 Investment in UHBVNL 5,46

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

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

Disallowance o f commission expense to Munjal Sales Corporation - Gr.No.3 (Refer appeal notes pages 33 to 46) The AO has not contradicted any of the facts mentioned in appeal notes at pages 33 to 46. The A. O. has simply repeated the issue mentioned in the body of assessment order. The issue is covered by the decision of your

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)

46,62,809/-. The total disallowance under Clause of Rule 8D(2) was, therefore, of Rs. 15,09,95,598/-. From this, suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 11,79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule

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)

46,62,809/-. The total disallowance under Clause of Rule 8D(2) was, therefore, of Rs. 15,09,95,598/-. From this, suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 11,79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule

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)

46,62,809/-. The total disallowance under Clause of Rule 8D(2) was, therefore, of Rs. 15,09,95,598/-. From this, suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 11,79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule

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)

46,62,809/-. The total disallowance under Clause of Rule 8D(2) was, therefore, of Rs. 15,09,95,598/-. From this, suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 11,79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule

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)

46,62,809/-. The total disallowance under Clause of Rule 8D(2) was, therefore, of Rs. 15,09,95,598/-. From this, suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 11,79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule