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

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

section 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90

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 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90

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 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90

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 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90

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 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90

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 14A of the Act as the assessee company has earned exempt dividend income not forming part of total income of the assessee company. 9.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A)the assessee submitted as under: The AO had disallowed a sum ofRs. 29,90

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

disallowance of Rs. 90,20,655 under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine

ITO, W-2, BARNALA vs. THE TRUCK OPERATOR UNION, BARNALA

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

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthe Ito बनाम The Truck Operator Union, Ward-2, Barnala Dhanaula Road, Barnala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaat6497M

section 40A(3) of the Act. It was submitted that as against the general threshold of Rs 20,000/-, the legislature itself taking into consideration the nature of business of truck operators has increased the prescribed threshold to Rs 35,000/- and therefore, in such circumstances, where the said threshold is also breached, the assessee has to provide suitable explanation

RAMJEE CONCRETES PVT.LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 205/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, The Ito, बनाम #1238.Sector 91, Ward 6(3), Mohali, Punjab Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aafcr9457E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

90 or, as the ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 14 case may be, deduction from the Indian income-tax payable under section 91.] [Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes

M/S AMIT ENGINEERS,BADDI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 299/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 I) M/S Amit Engineers, The Dcit बनाम Villagae Judi Kalan, Circle, Parwanoo, H.P. Baddi, District, Solan & Ii) Himachal Pradesh - 173205 Adit, Cpc, Banglore "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakfa5620L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

90,457/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards ESI and EPF under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S DEVAKAR INVESTMENT & TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

90,287/- and brought to tax an amount of Rs. 39,34,633/- in addition to the amount of Rs. 22,54,654/- disallowed by the assessee suo-moto under section

PUKHRAJ SINGH GUJRAL,CHANDIGARH vs. CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Final Hearing

90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by filing Form No. 67 on 27.08.2022, after the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1), which was 31.07.2022. The CPC, Bengaluru, processed the return under Section 143(1) on 26.10.2022 and disallowed

M/S STYLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ADIT,CPC/DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

90,950/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

M/S SHINE & SIND SECURITY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT,CPC/ITO-WARD-3(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

90,950/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by observing in para 5 of the assessment order dt. 31/01/2014 which read as under: During the course of the Assessment Proceedings the details regarding the Debtors as standing in the Balance Sheet of the Assessee as on 31.3.2011 were called for. Copy of accounts of the main Debtors

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 37 that the expression " for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for ITA 350/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 70 commercial expediency, and it is immaterial if a third party also benefits thereby." (iv). The supreme Court further held at placitum 26 at page 8 of the report as under: "The expression "commercial expediency" is an expression of wide

EMSON TOOLS MFG. CORPN. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT/DCIT- 1, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

90 days, the longer period shall apply. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ITO , WARD -1,, SANGRUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

90 days, that longer period shall apply. III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowing the same under section 14A of Income Tax Aqt. / 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while confirming the action of assessing officer for treating the Sales Tax subsidy/Exemption amounting to Rs.4,60,68,415/- as a revenue receipt. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred