M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the\nappeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 10,88,438/-. The grounds\nraised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.\n15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.\"\nc) The Hon'ble Pune ITAT in the case of Kumar Housing Corporation (P)\nLtd vs. ITO (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 259 (Pune - Trib.) also held as\nunder:\n\"20. Since the assessee

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 43(4), ‘Scientific Research’ means any activities for the extension of ITA 350/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 78 knowledge in the fields of natural or applied science including agriculture, animal husbandry or fisheries; that ‘expenditure incurred on scientific research’ includes all expenditure incurred for the prosecution or provision of facilities for the prosecution of scientific research, but do not include

DCIT-CC-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S LAXMI ENERGY & FOODS LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 33/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Laxmi Energy & Foods बनाम Ltd., Central Circle-Iii, Sco 18-19, Sector 9-D, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl3147J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

section 14A is triggered for disallowance of expenditure incurred which is relatable to tax exempt income even though no tax exempt income under the Act has been earned during a particular year?" 4. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before is heard and disposed off. 2. Appeal on Ground

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to pay channels.  Disallowance of Rs. 6,88

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to pay channels.  Disallowance of Rs. 6,88

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to pay channels.  Disallowance of Rs. 6,88

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to pay channels.  Disallowance of Rs. 6,88

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to pay channels.  Disallowance of Rs. 6,88

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support. The Ld. AO however has failed to do this exercise. No flaw had been fond either in explanation or evidences produced. Hence we hold that account’s of each unit is just, fair and proper and cannot

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support. The Ld. AO however has failed to do this exercise. No flaw had been fond either in explanation or evidences produced. Hence we hold that account’s of each unit is just, fair and proper and cannot

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support. The Ld. AO however has failed to do this exercise. No flaw had been fond either in explanation or evidences produced. Hence we hold that account’s of each unit is just, fair and proper and cannot

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support. The Ld. AO however has failed to do this exercise. No flaw had been fond either in explanation or evidences produced. Hence we hold that account’s of each unit is just, fair and proper and cannot

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support. The Ld. AO however has failed to do this exercise. No flaw had been fond either in explanation or evidences produced. Hence we hold that account’s of each unit is just, fair and proper and cannot

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support. The Ld. AO however has failed to do this exercise. No flaw had been fond either in explanation or evidences produced. Hence we hold that account’s of each unit is just, fair and proper and cannot

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support. The Ld. AO however has failed to do this exercise. No flaw had been fond either in explanation or evidences produced. Hence we hold that account’s of each unit is just, fair and proper and cannot

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

88,806/- ought to have examined this explanation extensively on merits as the explanation given was accompanied with the evidences in support. The Ld. AO however has failed to do this exercise. No flaw had been fond either in explanation or evidences produced. Hence we hold that account’s of each unit is just, fair and proper and cannot

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under section 35AD of the Act. 21. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company has claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 9,88

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction under section 35AD of the Act. 21. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee company has claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 9,88