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 @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

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 @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

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 @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

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 @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

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 @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

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

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

disallowance @ 10% of deduction u/s 80IC in respect of Tahliwal Unit on account some alleged indirect benefits derived from Phillaur Unit by Tahliwal Unit by applying provisions of sub section 8 & 10 to section 801 A. In this regard " it is submitted that no such benefits have been derived by Talhliwal Unit. Moreover the ^provisions of sub section

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

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AVON CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Circle-5, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R & C.O.No.6/Chd/2016 In M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs. The A.C.I.T., G.T. Road, Circle-5, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on account of the same was warranted having been decided in the preceding years itself in favour of the assessee. As for the investment made in the impugned year amounting to Rs.1.21 crores, the Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that it had enough own funds for making

ABHINAV IMPEX,LUDHIANA vs. ITO , LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: The Date Of Filing The Return Of Income Under Income Tax Act, 1961. In So Far As The Income-Tax Act Is Concerned, The Assesse Can Get The Benefit If The Actual Payment Is Made Before The Return Is Filed. The Employee Share For Epf Is Rs. 1,17,494/-And Esi Is Rs. 45,993/-.

63,487/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

B.L EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,SOLAN vs. DCIT,CPC/ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD, SOLAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 313/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 B.L. Educational Society, The Dcit, बनाम The Mall, Cpc, Bengaluru, Solan Karnataka "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaab0547L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

63,670/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

ACIT, C-6, LUDHIANA vs. MAJESTIC HOTELS LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

63,872/- for the assessment year 2010-2011 made by the Ld. Predecessor Assessing Officers of the appellant.” 16. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, stated that the Ld.CIT (A) had rightly deleted the disallowance of interest made, on account of availability of sufficient own funds having been demonstrated by the assessee for making 12 A.Y.2012-13 the impugned advances

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)

63,32,789/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs. 3,46,62,809/-. 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

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)

63,32,789/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs. 3,46,62,809/-. 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

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)

63,32,789/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs. 3,46,62,809/-. 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

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)

63,32,789/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs. 3,46,62,809/-. 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

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)

63,32,789/- and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) amounting to Rs. 3,46,62,809/-. 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

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)

section 36(1)(iii). ITA 350/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 49 40. In the above view of the matter, the assessee is correct in contending that the learned Commissioner went wrong in passing his order following ex parte orders passed by the Tribunal, and thereby, wrongly applying 'Abhishek Industries' (supra). 41.1. So far as regards the issue of the financial position

SH. JAI TEG SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptashri Jai Teg Singh, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, # 2431, Sector 79, Ward-6(2), Mohali. Mohali. Pan: Arjps5960R

section 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure which amounted in all to Rs.38,98,380/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 4. Before the Ld.CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that no disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act was warranted since the genuineness of the transaction had not been disbelieved by the Assessing Officer