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

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

3 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2012-13: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2013-14: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) 6.1 The relevant portion of the Assessment Order pertaining to disallowance is as under: 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

3 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2012-13: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2013-14: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) 6.1 The relevant portion of the Assessment Order pertaining to disallowance is as under: The assessee

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

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

3 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2012-13: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2013-14: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) 6.1 The relevant portion of the Assessment Order pertaining to disallowance is as under: 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

3 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2012-13: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) A.Y. 2013-14: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal (Cremica) 6.1 The relevant portion of the Assessment Order pertaining to disallowance is as under: The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance under section 80IA and allowing the necessary relief to the assessee. It was further submitted that the order so passed by the Coordinate Bench are not just in relation to revisionary proceedings but the issue on merits has already been discussed and in this regard, our reference was drawn to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

disallowance under section 14A of the Act is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Oil Industry Development Board followed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT(A) although supported the order of the A.O. but could not controvert the aforesaid contention

M/S SJVN LTD. ( FORMERLY SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED),SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

Disallowance of Insurance receipts from repairs 1,64,46,808/- Insurance claim received against damages for plant and machinery needs to be allowed. Ratio of CIT vs Gangotri Textiles Ltd. 40 Taxmann 399 is not applicable (ii) Miscellaneous income derived from license fee from quarters, recovery of private use of vehicles, income from transit camps, forfeiture of security, post retirement

M/S SJVN LTD. ( FORMERLY SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED),SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

Disallowance of Insurance receipts from repairs 1,64,46,808/- Insurance claim received against damages for plant and machinery needs to be allowed. Ratio of CIT vs Gangotri Textiles Ltd. 40 Taxmann 399 is not applicable (ii) Miscellaneous income derived from license fee from quarters, recovery of private use of vehicles, income from transit camps, forfeiture of security, post retirement

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. M/S SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED, SHIMLA

Disallowance of Insurance receipts from repairs 1,64,46,808/- Insurance claim received against damages for plant and machinery needs to be allowed. Ratio of CIT vs Gangotri Textiles Ltd. 40 Taxmann 399 is not applicable (ii) Miscellaneous income derived from license fee from quarters, recovery of private use of vehicles, income from transit camps, forfeiture of security, post retirement

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

II Material and not fresh material whose rates have been wrongly compared by the. AO. Copies of the said bills issued to M/s. Raj Paper Corporation have been enclosed at pages 200 to 203 of the paper book. Further, the AR filed copy of the invoice at page 204 of the paper book, which is an invoice issued

DSG PAPERS PVT LTD #6, GREEN VIEW COLONY,PATIALA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

II Material and not fresh material whose rates have been wrongly compared by the. AO. Copies of the said bills issued to M/s. Raj Paper Corporation have been enclosed at pages 200 to 203 of the paper book. Further, the AR filed copy of the invoice at page 204 of the paper book, which is an invoice issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid direction

II Material and not fresh material whose rates have been wrongly compared by the. AO. Copies of the said bills issued to M/s. Raj Paper Corporation have been enclosed at pages 200 to 203 of the paper book. Further, the AR filed copy of the invoice at page 204 of the paper book, which is an invoice issued

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

II Material and not fresh material whose rates\nhave been wrongly compared by the. AO. Copies of the said bills issued to M/s.\nRaj Paper Corporation have been enclosed at pages 200 to 203 of the paper\nbook. Further, the AR filed copy of the invoice at page 204 of the paper book,\nwhich is an invoice issued

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

II Material and not fresh material whose rates\nhave been wrongly compared by the. AO. Copies of the said bills issued to M/s.\nRaj Paper Corporation have been enclosed at pages 200 to 203 of the paper\nbook. Further, the AR filed copy of the invoice at page 204 of the paper book,\nwhich is an invoice issued

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

II Material and not fresh material whose rates\nhave been wrongly compared by the. AO. Copies of the said bills issued to M/s.\nRaj Paper Corporation have been enclosed at pages 200 to 203 of the paper\nbook. Further, the AR filed copy of the invoice at page 204 of the paper book,\nwhich is an invoice issued

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

II Material and not fresh material whose rates\nhave been wrongly compared by the. AO. Copies of the said bills issued to M/s.\nRaj Paper Corporation have been enclosed at pages 200 to 203 of the paper\nbook. Further, the AR filed copy of the invoice at page 204 of the paper book,\nwhich is an invoice issued