M/S MAHABIR INDUSTRIES,BADDI vs. ITO, BADDI

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

section 80-IC(6) and confirmed the denial of deduction claimed by the appellant, which is bad both in law & facts. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in upholding the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by disallowing

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

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SPRAY ENGINEERING DEVICES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8(D) computed under the normal provisions while assessing the income of the assessee under the MAT provisions of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The issue has now been decided in favour of the assessee by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ‘ACIT

SHRI BHAVESH T PRASANA,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CIRCLE , PARWANOO

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

disallowing the benefit of substantial expansion u/s 80IC(2) and confirming the deduction u/s 80IC only to the extent of 25% as against 100% as claimed by assessee on undertaking substantial expansion.” 2. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The record shows that the appeal came up for he aring

M/S K.T. INC,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the benefit of substantial expansion u/s 80IC(2) and confirming the deduction u/s 80IC only to the extent of 25% as against 100% claimed by assessee on undertaking substantial expansion.” 2. At the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over. In the 2 n d round also the position

B.P. LIPEDS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

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

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off. 2. Both The Parties Have Been Heard. The Ld. Ar Relies Upon The Latest Decision Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Pcit Shimla Vs M/S Aarham Softronics & Others In Civil Appeal No. 1784 Of 2019 Dated 20.02.2019 Whrein The View Taken In The Case Of Cit Vs M/S Classic Binding

disallowing deduction, amounting to Rs. 16,77,337/-, u/s 80IC, without appreciating the fact that the act allows deduction of 100% for first five years after substantial expansion. Further the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of M/s Stovekraft India Vs CIT has held that deduction of 100% for first five years after substantial expansion is allowed

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, 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...

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

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-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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

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

Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee

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-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions we have correctly claimed deduction U/S 801C on the profits earned on job work." The assessee