THE LANJANI CO-OPERATIVE AGRI SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,KANGRA vs. DCIT,CPC/ITO-WARD-, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of deduction claimed under Sections 10AA, 80-1 A, 80-1 AB, 80- IB, 80- IC, 80-1D or section

THE BALOL CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,KANGRA vs. ITO, WARD, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of deduction claimed under Sections 10AA, 80-1 A, 80-1 AB, 80- IB, 80- IC, 80-1D or section

THE CHAPLAH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LTD,VPO CHOULI vs. LD. DCIT , CPC, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Dt 25.04.2023 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

disallowance of deduction claimed under Sections 10AA, 80-1 A, 80-1 AB, 80- IB, 80- IC, 80-1D or section

THE RUHRU CO-OPERATIVE AGRI SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,KANGRA vs. ITO WARD, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of deduction claimed under Sections 10AA, 80-1 A, 80-1 AB, 80- IB, 80- IC, 80-1D or section

THE SURARWAN GAGWAN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED ,SURARWAN vs. LD. DCIT, CPC, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 46/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Surarwan Gagwan Co- Vs. The Ito, Operative Agriculture Service बनाम Ward, Society Limited, Nurpur (Palampur ) Surarwan Indora H.P. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaact8925A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Virtual Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishan Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Sh Aditya Sood, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharam Vir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024

disallowance of deduction claimed under Sections 10AA, 80-1 A, 80-1 AB, 80- IB, 80- IC, 80-1D or section

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No.160, 161 & 162/ Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Jyoti Co-operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Sirmour, Solan, HP-173025 स्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: AAABT1453G अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO H.P Ward-Nahan, Sirmour प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet K

80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In the said case, the relevant facts were that the assessee had earned interest of about Rs. 3.99 crores on the investment of its reserve funds and claimed exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In the said case, the relevant facts were that the assessee had earned interest of about Rs. 3.99 crores on the investment of its reserve funds and claimed exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed

THE JYOTI CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURAL THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, WARD, NAHAN

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In the said case, the relevant facts were that the assessee had earned interest of about Rs. 3.99 crores on the investment of its reserve funds and claimed exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed

ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. M/S JAMNA AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD., YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

80,000/-. 5. The CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order, has deleted the addition, giving rise to Ground Nos. 1 and 2. 6. Challenging the impugned order, the ld. DR has contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was not right in deleting the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer under section

ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. M/S JAMNA AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD., YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

80,000/-. 5. The CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order, has deleted the addition, giving rise to Ground Nos. 1 and 2. 6. Challenging the impugned order, the ld. DR has contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was not right in deleting the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer under section

THE TAL CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,HAMIRPUR vs. ITO, WARD, HAMIRPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

80-P amounting to Rs. 3,50,177/-without complying with provisions of proviol & 2 to section 143(l](a), i.e. opportunity of hearing and without considering objections of the assessee that there is no provision in this section to make this type of adjustment and without following the principles of nature justice to give opportunity of hearing. In spite

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs.16,33,037/- under Section 40A(3). The AO observed that the assessee made cash purchases exceeding Rs.20,000/- in a day to a single party, thus violating the provision. Although the assessee claimed that the payments were made to transporters which were within the higher limit of Rs.35,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) had called

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 69C are not applicable in the case of appellant. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has wrongly disallowed a sum of Rs. 28,48,416/- being 80

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)

80,77,388/- has been debited in the P&L Account and in such circumstances the provision of Section 14A are attracted. It has further been stated by the AO that though the assessee has not received any dividend on this investment, the provision of Section 14A are still attracted and the amount of disallowance

SHIVA SPECIALITY YARNS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 139(3), then current loss will not be permissible to the assessee to carry forward for further years. Accordingly, he disallowed this loss. Apart from this A.Y.2018-19 3 loss, he disallowed an expenditure of Rs.3,80

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

Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. 10. The Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of assessment year 2014-15 are inter-connected with Ground No.3 and 4 of assessment year 2015-16. We take all these grounds of appeal together. The assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.37,80

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

Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. 10. The Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of assessment year 2014-15 are inter-connected with Ground No.3 and 4 of assessment year 2015-16. We take all these grounds of appeal together. The assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.37,80

M/S BROOKS LABORATORIES LTD.,BADDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

80-IC claimed at Rs. 27,66,772/- @ 30% on interest income amounting to Rs. 92,22,575/-.” 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its original return of income declaring total income at NIL which was selected for compulsory scrutiny and therefore, the assessment proceedings were completed and order was passed under section

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)

disallowed deduction under section 80IC/80IA of the Act and insurance claim, rent received, Foreign Exchange Rate, miscellaneous income, interest from banks, customers / suppliers and commission from Ocean Freight, holding them to be not derived from industrial undertaking. 20.3 The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction under section 80IC and 80