M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 44AB of the I.T. Act,1961 which is reproduced as above (supra). 13.3 The ld. AR with regard to Ground No.4 which pertains to disallowance of expenses of Rs. 32,20,737/- being 50

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 44AB of the I.T. Act,1961 which is reproduced as above (supra). 13.3 The ld. AR with regard to Ground No.4 which pertains to disallowance of expenses of Rs. 32,20,737/- being 50

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

section 36(1) (iii) of the Act by observing in para 7 of the assessment order which read as under: 7. Disallowance of Interest u/s 36(1)(iii) on account of interest free advances 7.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the details of Loans and Advances given by the assessee was called for. It was seen that 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

section 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19,62,710/- and further

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 Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19,62,710/- and further

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 Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19,62,710/- and further

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 Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19,62,710/- and further

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 Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19,62,710/- and further

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 Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90,386/- u/s 14A /Rule 8D by taking the interest element ofRs. 2,19,62,710/- and further

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)

disallowed only 50% of the purchase amounting to Rs. 3,60,17,756/-. Apart from this, the Assessing Officer also made additions under section

DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

section 144(C)(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2014- 15, respectively. Since, the issues raised in grounds of appeal for both the impugned AYs are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order

M/S DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA PVT. LTD. ,TOANSA vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व. 2011-12)

section 144(C)(13) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 & 2014- 15, respectively. Since, the issues raised in grounds of appeal for both the impugned AYs are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, MANIMAJRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the

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

50, i.e., Note No. 26 to the assessee's account, Non Operating Income. The same was exempt u/s 10(34) of ITA 347/CHD/2024 & C.O. 17/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 7 the Act. As per APB-2, which is a copy of the computation of income at APB 87, i.e., the details of expenditure disallowed, the assessee had made a suo- moto disallowance

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)

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 19. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the interest of Rs. 2,23,50

PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

50,00,000/- being commission paid to directors. The same being allowable as business expenditure, the disallowance made on this account be deleted. 5. As per the facts and circumstance of the case and as per the provisions of law, the Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in its directions, and the assessing officer has erred in disallowing interest

M/S PUNJAB CHEMICALS & CROP. PROTECTION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

50,00,000/- being commission paid to directors. The same being allowable as business expenditure, the disallowance made on this account be deleted. 5. As per the facts and circumstance of the case and as per the provisions of law, the Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in its directions, and the assessing officer has erred in disallowing interest

M/S MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

50,000/- on account of disallowance of expenditure incurred for earning of tax exempt income as per the provisions of section