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

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)

54,3000/- in quoted and unquoted shares was made by the AO and dividend income of Rs.7,12,442/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. It has been contended that the AO has made the disallowance by applying the provisions of ITA 347/CHD/2024 & C.O. 17/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 8 Rule 8D(ii) and (iii). It has also been

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)

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act vide order dt. 31/12/2023 wherein the reassessed income was determined at Rs. 2,54,79,04,707/- as against original assessed income of Rs. 1,56,95,34,890/-. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since deleted the said addition and against

DCIT-CC-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S LAXMI ENERGY & FOODS LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 33/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Laxmi Energy & Foods बनाम Ltd., Central Circle-Iii, Sco 18-19, Sector 9-D, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl3147J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

Disallowance as per provisions of Section 14A of the Act. 1. Total investments made amounting to Rs.61,32,54,169/- . 2. The Assessing

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)

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of interest to the extent of interest not taken. ० Post 'Abhishek Industries' (supra), according to 'Bright Enterprises' (dated 24.7.2015) (supra) [on having considered 'Abhishek Industries' (supra) and having followed 'SA Builders' (supra)], to allow the interest as deduction under section 36(1)(iii), the real test is that it was commercial expediency which

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED 2000-1A, SUKHDEV NAGAR FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under section 35AD of the Act. 21. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company has claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 9,88,54

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under section 35AD of the Act. 21. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company has claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 9,88,54

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under section 35AD of the Act. 21. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company has claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 9,88,54

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

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

54,913/-, loans amounting to Rs.12,76,80,548/- ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 70 were pertaining to earlier years and they were brought forward as pending balances. Now, it is well settled that sums pertaining to earlier years, brought forward as pending balance cannot be taxed under the provisions 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)

54,913/-, loans amounting to Rs.12,76,80,548/- ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 70 were pertaining to earlier years and they were brought forward as pending balances. Now, it is well settled that sums pertaining to earlier years, brought forward as pending balance cannot be taxed under the provisions 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)

54,913/-, loans amounting to Rs.12,76,80,548/- ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 70 were pertaining to earlier years and they were brought forward as pending balances. Now, it is well settled that sums pertaining to earlier years, brought forward as pending balance cannot be taxed under the provisions of Section

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)

54. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue involved in this ground relates to the disallowance of 80% of the commission expenditure amounting to Rs. 28,48,416/- out of the total commission of Rs. 35,60,520/- claimed by the assessee. 55. The Assessing Officer disallowed the major portion

M/S S.R. INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowed under the provision of section 36(l)(iii). Therefore, I have reason to believe that there is under assessment to the tune of Rs. 73,44,534/-. 2. Perusal of the Schedule B to Balance-sheet shows that a liability on account of state investment subsidy is appearing therein at Rs. 30 lacs. The State subsidy needs

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is

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

54,3000/- in quoted and unquoted shares was made by the AO and dividend income of Rs.7,12,442/- was claimed as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. It has been contended that the AO has made the disallowance by applying the provisions of Rule 8D(ii) and (iii). It has also been averred that CBDT Circular No.5

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

54. The grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the assessing officer was incorrect and unjustified in: i) Disallowing indexed cost of construction of Rs.54,07,089 on the house sold, while computing capital gain, on the basis of estimating and also by ignoring the valuation report

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 36(l)(iii)." Further, in the case of CIT Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. quoted above, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that: - "Once it is borne out from the records that the assessee had borrowed certain funds on which liability to pay tax is being incurred and on the other hand, certain amounts had been advanced

CEE ENN ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED BAREWAL SUKHMANI ENCLAVE LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) LUDHIANA RISHI NAGAR LUDHIANA, INCOME TAX OFFICER LUDHIANA RISHI NAGAR LUDHINA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

54,82,350/- and opting for taxation under the concessional regime of section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, while processing the return under section 143(1) on 21.05.2024, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru disallowed

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Disallowance of Rs. 38,69,96,590/- made on account of Provision on advances created during the year. In this regard Ld. AR submitted as under: 50. “Not pressed. The CIT(A) had decided the allowability of this expenditure against us. However, he has further held that we are entitled to enhanced deduction u/s 80P on this issue also