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)

1)(iii) of the Act provides that “the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession” has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the income under Section 280 of the Act. It was further noted by the Apex Court that the expression “for the purpose of business

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

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

65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1,47,859/- 6 Water Chilling Plant 3,62,554/- 7 Plant & Machinery 1,04,611/- (Lettuce plant) 8 Water Chilling Plant 3,29,200/- (Lettuce Plant) TOTAL 12530870/- 6.2 The total cost of plant and machinery amounts to Rs. 1,19,05,190/-:. The assessee vide order sheet entry

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

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

65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1,47,859/- 6 Water Chilling Plant 3,62,554/- 7 Plant & Machinery 1,04,611/- (Lettuce plant) 8 Water Chilling Plant 3,29,200/- (Lettuce Plant) TOTAL 12530870/- 6.2 The total cost of plant and machinery amounts to Rs. 1,19,05,190/-:. The assessee vide order sheet entry

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

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

65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1,47,859/- 6 Water Chilling Plant 3,62,554/- 7 Plant & Machinery 1,04,611/- (Lettuce plant) 8 Water Chilling Plant 3,29,200/- (Lettuce Plant) TOTAL 12530870/- 6.2 The total cost of plant and machinery amounts to Rs. 1,19,05,190/-:. The assessee vide order sheet entry

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

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

65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1,47,859/- 6 Water Chilling Plant 3,62,554/- 7 Plant & Machinery 1,04,611/- (Lettuce plant) 8 Water Chilling Plant 3,29,200/- (Lettuce Plant) TOTAL 12530870/- 6.2 The total cost of plant and machinery amounts to Rs. 1,19,05,190/-:. The assessee vide order sheet entry

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

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

65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1,47,859/- 6 Water Chilling Plant 3,62,554/- 7 Plant & Machinery 1,04,611/- (Lettuce plant) 8 Water Chilling Plant 3,29,200/- (Lettuce Plant) TOTAL 12530870/- 6.2 The total cost of plant and machinery amounts to Rs. 1,19,05,190/-:. The assessee vide order sheet entry

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

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

65,078/- 4 Plant & Machinery 55,96,008/- 5 Transformer 1,47,859/- 6 Water Chilling Plant 3,62,554/- 7 Plant & Machinery 1,04,611/- (Lettuce plant) 8 Water Chilling Plant 3,29,200/- (Lettuce Plant) TOTAL 12530870/- 6.2 The total cost of plant and machinery amounts to Rs. 1,19,05,190/-:. The assessee vide order sheet entry

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

65\ntaxmann.com 95 (Hyderabad - Trib.) has held that:\n12\n\"Section 13, read with section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable or\nreligious trust - Denial of exemption (Sub-section (l)(c)) - Assessment year 2011-\nAssessee-society claimed exemption under section 11 - Assessing Officer\nconcluded that quantum jump in payment of salary to its executive director in\n assessment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the claim of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly sustained the action of the A.O. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Smt. Tupel Raja Iyengar Shakuntala Vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(4), Bangalore in ITA No. 64/Bang/2019 vide order dt. 10/05/2019 of SMC “A” Bench of Bangalore. • Bhagwan Swroop Pathak Vs. ITO, Ward

M/S CHANDIGARH LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Vs. The Ito (Exemptions), Association, Ward, Chandigarh Sector 10, Chandigarh Pan No. Aaatc4943J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. Cit (On 22.3.2018) & Sh.Yoginder Mittal, Sr. Dr (On 13.7.2018) Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2018 & 13.7.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 claimed by the assessee. 3. Brief facts relating to the issue as culled out from the order of CIT(A) are that the assessee, M/s Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (hereinafter referred to as ‘CLTA’) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The assessee is also registered as a charitable entity vide order dated

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

65,94,302 Total Taxable income 5,23,74,106 ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 4 Assessment year 2015-16 Particular Amount (In INR) Returned Income Nil Disallowance of Honorarium (Rs. 30,61,129/-) 1,07,39,814 and travelling and conveyance expense along with cost of vehicles (Rs. 76,78,685/-) Disallowance of Interest on Advances

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

65,94,302 Total Taxable income 5,23,74,106 ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 4 Assessment year 2015-16 Particular Amount (In INR) Returned Income Nil Disallowance of Honorarium (Rs. 30,61,129/-) 1,07,39,814 and travelling and conveyance expense along with cost of vehicles (Rs. 76,78,685/-) Disallowance of Interest on Advances

ASHISH SOOD,ZIRAKPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

65,39,120/- wherein total tax paid is shown as Rs. 4,93,295/-. 4. In computation of total income (revised) an amount of Rs. 7,70,863/- is claimed as eligible deductible under section 90/91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. In support of such eligible deductible claim under section 90/91

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 (1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being use for non business purpose.” The said finding of Ld. AO is sustained by CIT(A) too. Now it is not open for Ld. AR to turn around and contend otherwise. In any event even on merits the assertion of Ld. AR is required to be tested in original

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

65,94,005/-). In addition, the AO also treated the GDR receipt of Rs. 6,45,00,000/-being share capital and Rs. 38,30,88,075/- being security premium totaling to Rs. 44,75,88,075/- as income from undisclosed sources and which was brought to tax by invoking the provisions of Section

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

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

65,85,400/- after making the disallowance of bad debts written off during the year. The order of Ld. AO bears No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/10359/30321(1) and is dated 27/09/2021. 8. That the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the disallowance made by the AO in the aforesaid reassessment order dt. 27/09/2021 passed under section

SMT. SHWETA JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

1,65,38,920/-.” 22. We also rely on the decision of the coordinate Bench at Ranchi in the case of Rinku Agarwal in ITA No. 262/Ran/2017 dated 30.11.2018. In the instant case as well in the course of search operations conducted at the Mica Mod Group on 21.11.2012, the assessee had admitted additional income of Rs.5

M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TENT SERVICES,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, all the above appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

1,65,38,920/-.” 22. We also rely on the decision of the coordinate Bench at Ranchi in the case of Rinku Agarwal in ITA No. 262/Ran/2017 dated 30.11.2018. In the instant case as well in the course of search operations conducted at the Mica Mod Group on 21.11.2012, the assessee had admitted additional income of Rs.5