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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.16 Following the judgment of the Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd(supra)we hereby direct that the disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.16 Following the judgment of the Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd(supra)we hereby direct that the disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.16 Following the judgment of the Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd(supra)we hereby direct that the disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.16 Following the judgment of the Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd(supra)we hereby direct that the disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.16 Following the judgment of the Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd(supra)we hereby direct that the disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground

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 Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.16 Following the judgment of the Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd(supra)we hereby direct that the disallowance made be deleted. 9.17 As a result this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 10. Issue of Sales Tax Subsidy A.Y. 2008-09: Ground No. 2 of the Assessee’s appeal (Additional Ground

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)

65,171+95,27,54,300/-/2* 0.5%). The AO made a further disallowance of Rs.2,09,78,997/- u/s 14A of the Act over and above the said disallowance of Rs.48,48,048/- made suo-moto by the assessee. While doing so, the AO observed that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules

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

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

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. 25. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submission which had been incorporated in para 11.1 of the impugned order, for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein. 25.1 The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the written submissions

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)

disallowed proportionate interest claimed by the assessee on this amount. The Hon'ble Apex Court decided this issue, holding that “the expression ‘commercial expediency’ is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, yet it is allowable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order

THE SHAHABAD COOP. SUGAR MILLS,SHAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 11/03/2018 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order, Before This Tribunal In Form No. 36 Has Interalia Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

65,647/- disallowed and added back in income needs to be deleted.” The corresponding finding of CIT(A) is as follows: 3.2 Findings :- I have examined the facts of the case and the submissions made by the assessee. The A.O. has, in his order, given a detailed finding in this regard and reasoned why the decision in CIT vs. Abhishek

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

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

disallowance made by the assessing officer and sustained by the C1T(A) is unlawful and not sustainable for the reasons submitted as under: The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of 'Over the Counter" (OTC) products, viz. ENO, Crocin etc. The appellant vide agreement dated 18-01-1996 with GSK plc. (earlier known