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

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

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6

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

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

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6

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

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

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6

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

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

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6

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

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

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6

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

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

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.3 As a result this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6

VARDHMAN POLYTEX LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT(TDS), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. Though Notices Were Issued Electronically Through The E-Filing Portal, The Assessee Contended That Such Notices Were Neither Brought To Their Knowledge Nor Received Through Any Alternative Means Such As Email Or Physical Intimation. Consequently, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte. It Was Further Submitted That The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is Legal In Nature & Does Not Require Examination Of Disputed Facts; Hence, The Matter May Be Adjudicated On Merits Without The Necessity Of A Remand To The Lower Authorities.

disallowance thereof, having regard to the smallness of the amount involved. Accordingly, we are not adjudicating this ground in the present appeal. The issue is being left open and may be examined, if necessary, in appropriate future proceedings. 10. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the assessee has fully complied with the requirements of Section 194C(6

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)

disallowance of a substantial portion of purchases on an ad-hoc basis. 886-CHD-2024 16 22. We also take note of the submission of the Ld. AR that the suppliers had responded to the notices issued under section 133(6

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

6-DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction on the assessee in his trading activities. Section 40- A (3) only empowers the assessing officer to disallow

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

6)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’. ITA Nos.275 to 279/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2010-11 Page 2 of 20 2. At the outset itself, it was pointed out that the issue involved in all the appeals was common, relating to disallowance of expenses incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted, and the disallowance for personal use was restricted to one-tenth. Other additions were confirmed. 6

ITO, WARD, PALAMPUR vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KANGRA

In the result, appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us Is Filed Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, As Amended From Time To Time. The Respondent Is A Cooperative Bank.

disallowance of expenditure of Rs 44,08,23,002/-under section 14A made on this account. This ground of appeal is allowed. 6

M/S MAHABIR INDUSTRIES,BADDI vs. ITO, BADDI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 11,04,022/- claimed by the appellant under section 80 IC of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the ground that the appellant has during the year exceeded the total period of deduction as per section 80IC(6

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)

disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of capital expansion project. We find that identical issue was raised by the assessee in ground no.5 of the appeal for Ay 2011-12. For parity of reasons, the ground no.4 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 29. In ground no.5 of appeal, the assessee

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)

disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of capital expansion project. We find that identical issue was raised by the assessee in ground no.5 of the appeal for Ay 2011-12. For parity of reasons, the ground no.4 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 29. In ground no.5 of appeal, the assessee

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

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

6 of the assessment order dt. 31/01/2014 for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. The A.O. after considering the submission of the assessee invoked the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962. The A.O. worked out the disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, PANCHKULA

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A was unwarranted as Rule 8D had not been applied and a suo motu disallowance had already been made. 6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, PANCHKULA

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A was unwarranted as Rule 8D had not been applied and a suo motu disallowance had already been made. 6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, PANCHKULA

In the result, the present appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 14A was unwarranted as Rule 8D had not been applied and a suo motu disallowance had already been made. 6