VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,,

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of certain expenses suo moto by the assessee and thereafter not reallocate the same to the head office for the purpose of calculating eligible profits for deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Ground of appeal No.4(iv) is accordingly allowed. 46. Ground No.5(i)& (ii) raised by the assessee reads as under: “5. (i) That

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LTD.,, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of certain expenses suo moto by the assessee and thereafter not reallocate the same to the head office for the purpose of calculating eligible profits for deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Ground of appeal No.4(iv) is accordingly allowed. 46. Ground No.5(i)& (ii) raised by the assessee reads as under: “5. (i) That

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section