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

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

disallowed?" 6.3 The assessee vide its reply dated 29th December, 2008 replied that the list of Plant and Machinery of Noida Plant to be considered for the purpose of SSI is enclosed. The details of the Machinery have been taken from the details submitted by the assessee. The assessee has shown the value at Rs. 55,96,008/- only while

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

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

disallowed?" 6.3 The assessee vide its reply dated 29th December, 2008 replied that the list of Plant and Machinery of Noida Plant to be considered for the purpose of SSI is enclosed. The details of the Machinery have been taken from the details submitted by the assessee. The assessee has shown the value at Rs. 55,96,008/- only while

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

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

disallowed?" 6.3 The assessee vide its reply dated 29th December, 2008 replied that the list of Plant and Machinery of Noida Plant to be considered for the purpose of SSI is enclosed. The details of the Machinery have been taken from the details submitted by the assessee. The assessee has shown the value at Rs. 55,96,008/- only while

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

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

disallowed?" 6.3 The assessee vide its reply dated 29th December, 2008 replied that the list of Plant and Machinery of Noida Plant to be considered for the purpose of SSI is enclosed. The details of the Machinery have been taken from the details submitted by the assessee. The assessee has shown the value at Rs. 55,96,008/- only while

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowed notional interest of Rs.12,000 under section 36(1)(iii). 4.6 As a result of these additions, the AO computed the total assessed income at Rs.33,96

M/S HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN.,,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT,, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

Bench: The Itat. That In The First Round The Itat Had Held The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, For The Purposes Of Disallowing Expenses Relating To Exempt Income, Applicable In The Facts Of The Present Cases On Noting That The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income In The Form

section 14A of the Act and as per law. That subsequently the AO, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, had worked out the disallowance by applying the mathematical formula provided in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 for the said purpose, making disallowance of expenses for the impugned assessment years as under: Asstt. Year Disallowance

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 of the Act. 3. The Worthy CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to the tune of Rs.2,96

M/S SUPERMECH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

section 37 of the Income Tax Act. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off. 3. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 22,96

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHAINA vs. HOMELAND CITY PROJECT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

sections of the Act. 7 However, in the present case, it is observed as well as confirmed by the AO in remand report that there is no claim and expenditure. It is quite logical, that if no expenditure has been debited in P & L Account, i.e. not claimed as expenditure, question of disallowing it would not arise. Also

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)

disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of interest to the extent of interest not taken. ० Post 'Abhishek Industries' (supra), according to 'Bright Enterprises' (dated 24.7.2015) (supra) [on having considered 'Abhishek Industries' (supra) and having followed 'SA Builders' (supra)], to allow the interest as deduction under section 36(1)(iii), the real test is that it was commercial expediency which

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)

96,81,41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit

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)

96,81,41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit

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)

96,81,41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit

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)

96,81,41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit

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)

96,81,41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit

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)

96,81,41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit

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)

96,81,41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit

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)

96,81,41,078/- against the claim of the assessee of Rs. 1,04,45,13,879/- in the return of income. 9.1 The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that the R&D expenses were claimed for Ludhiana Unit (which was not an eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IC) but no R&D expenses were claimed for Haridwar Unit