ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

section 54 is genuinely claimed by him and therefore, disallowance made under section 54 amounting to Rs. 4,00,97,217/- needs

SH.ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the claim of deduction under Section 54 to the extent of Rs. 5,40,364/-. Thereafter the assessment records

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

M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN.,,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT,, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

Bench: The Itat. That In The First Round The Itat Had Held The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, For The Purposes Of Disallowing Expenses Relating To Exempt Income, Applicable In The Facts Of The Present Cases On Noting That The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income In The Form

section 14A of the Act and as per law. That subsequently the AO, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, had worked out the disallowance by applying the mathematical formula provided in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for the said purpose, making disallowance of expenses for the impugned assessment years as under: Asstt. Year Disallowance

S.SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

54 which reads as under: “Provided that if the amount deposited under this sub-section is not utilised wholly or partly for the purchase or construction of the new asset within the period specified in sub-section (1), then,— (i) the amount not so utilised shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year in which

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

KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed. Thus the capital gain amount of Rs. 3861259/- needed to be added back to taxable income and charged to tax.” 2.5 In the said background it was his submission referring to the relevant provision namely sub-section (1) of section 54

SH. PARAM PAUL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara, Judicialmember Assessment Year:2009-10

section 54 can only be made by filing the return. The quantification of that claim has to be made in the return itself and that quantification and eligibility has to be assessed by the A.O. Since the assessee has not filed the return in this case, the issue relating to eligibility to claim u/s. 54 do not arise

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

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

54,078/-) is disallowed and added back to the taxable income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as discussed above. B) Disallowance of Interest u/s 36(l)(iii) on account of Advance to Hero Motor: - During the course of assessment proceedings assessee vide order sheet entry dated

SHOBHA SHARMA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-3, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed:- i ) CIT. Rohtak Vs Jagtar Singh Chawla )ITA No. 71 of 2012 ( Punjab and Haryana High Court. ii) C1T-11, Chandigarh Vs Miss Jagrity Aggarwal (15 Taxaman. Com 146) Punjab and Haryana High Court. iii) Fatimabai Vs ITO (2009) 32 DTR 2143( Karnatka High Court) CIT I s Rajesh Kumar Jalan 256 [TR 274 (Gauhati High Court) iv) Seema

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S DEVAKAR INVESTMENT & TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

54,654/- disallowed by the assessee suo-moto under section 14A . 4. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted

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

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

54 Expenditure and decision of the appellant, whether or not to incur the said expenditure; the quantum thereof, cannot be a subject matter of challenge or disallowance by the Assessing Officer, once it is accepted that the expenditure was wholly, i.e. the quantum of expenditure incurred was fully, and exclusively for business purpose. In Sassoon J. Davit

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