VIRGO ALUMINUM LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. PR. C.I.T., CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 438/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

Section 80IA(7) r.w.s. 80IC(7) of the Act, which require the assessee to furnish the audit report along with his return of income to claim deduction u/s 80IA or 80IC of the Act, as the case may be. 11.1. We find that the ld. Pr. CIT had misconceived herself about the relevant provisions of the Act. In this case

M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the\nappeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 36(1) (iii). In para 4 the AO made disallowance of interest\nu/s 14A at Rs. 141510213/-, in para 6 made disallowance of interest u/s\n36(1)(iii) at Rs. 40,22,065/- on account of outstanding debit balances\nfrom M/s Hero Exports Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hero Motors Ltd. and further in\npara 7

M/S BARNALA BUILDERS AND CONSULTANT,ZIRAKPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT (CEN)-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance does not fall in any of the clauses of section 143(1). 7. We fully agree with the proposition

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 under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is legally sustainable in the wake of clarificatory Explanation, inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, to be read in to the main provision and applicable w.e.f. the date the main provision was inserted? vii), It is prayed that the order

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)

section 37 of the Act as business expenditure. Since, we have accepted the contentions raised by the assessee in ground no. 2 & 3 of the appeal, the alternate prayer made by the 7 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.1592/ चंडीगढ़/2018(िन.व.2014-15) ITA NO.253/Chd./2026 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1592/Chd./2018 (A.Y.2014-15) assessee in ground

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)

section 37 of the Act as business expenditure. Since, we have accepted the contentions raised by the assessee in ground no. 2 & 3 of the appeal, the alternate prayer made by the 7 आअसं.253/ चंडीगढ़/2016(िन.व.2011-12) आअसं.1592/ चंडीगढ़/2018(िन.व.2014-15) ITA NO.253/Chd./2026 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1592/Chd./2018 (A.Y.2014-15) assessee in ground

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

7. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR supported the AO’s assessment, stating that all disallowances were made as per law. Regarding the interest of Rs. 2,04,226, the DR argued that since TDS was not deducted and no certificate was provided to show that tax was paid

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

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. 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

M/S BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (CEN.)-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

disallowance does not fall in any of the clauses of section 143(1). 7. We fully agree with the proposition

ARVINDER PAUL JIT SINGH GILL,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowance does not fall in any of the clauses of section 143(1). 7. We fully agree with the proposition

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)

7. The assessee's Cross Objections (supra) for assessment year 2014-15 read as under : ITA 347/CHD/2024 & C.O. 17/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 6 (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department {CIT(A), ITD)} [NFAC] has erred both on facts and in law in restricting the disallowance under Section

THE JABO MAJRO CO-OPERATIVE LABOUR AND CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD.,MALERKOTLA vs. ITO, MALERKOTLA

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated

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)

7) TMI 356 and also the fact that the AO while completing the assessment under section 147 r.w.s 143 for A.Y 2010-11 and 2011-12 has accepted the contention of the assessee that the provision of Section 14A are not applicable and no disallowance

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 589/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ramesh Dudani, The Dcit, बनाम C-104, Industrial Area, Circle 6(1), Live Phase Vii, Stock Complex, Mohali -160055 Sector 68, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abbpd0633J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance under section 14A of the Act deserved to be deleted. 3.2 Coming to Ground No. 2 of the appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2013-14 also and the issue had been remanded back to the AO for the purpose of fresh consideration with opportunity to be 7

RAMJEE CONCRETES PVT.LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 205/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, The Ito, बनाम #1238.Sector 91, Ward 6(3), Mohali, Punjab Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aafcr9457E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance of Employees contribution to provident fund and ESI amounting to Rs. 2,14,402/- which was deposited before the due date of filling of return 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing 2.2 Apart from this, the assessee has also raised the following additional grounds

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. Against the order of the CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7

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. Against the order of the CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7

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. Against the order of the CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7

M/S LONGOWALIA YARNS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLE -1, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Filing Of The Return.

7 of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said