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

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

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal

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

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

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal

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

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

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal

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

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

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal

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

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

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal

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

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

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal

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 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

7 of 20 “1. That the CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in upholding the disallowance to the extent ofrs.4,33,381/- over and above the disallowance of Rs.77,213/- made by the assessee which is highly unjustified and uncalled for.” 8. Taking up first the issue raised in ground no.1 of the Appeals pertaining

M/S ELIN APPLIANCES PVT. LTD.,NALAGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE , PARWANOO

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowing the deduction under section 80IC after setting off losses of one eligible priority unit with the profit of another priority unit by virtue of which the appellant is denied from the eligible deduction of Rs. 7

M/S ELIN APPLIANCES PVT. LTD.,NALAGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE , PARWANOO

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowing the deduction under section 80IC after setting off losses of one eligible priority unit with the profit of another priority unit by virtue of which the appellant is denied from the eligible deduction of Rs. 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