THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE,, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. Ground No. 3:Overdue Interest from non-standard debts amounting to Rs. 27,66,41,513/- 9. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the Assessee in its synopsis submitted as under: “Not Pressed. The CIT(A) had decided the allowability of this expenditure against us. However, he has further held that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. Ground No. 3:Overdue Interest from non-standard debts amounting to Rs. 27,66,41,513/- 9. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the Assessee in its synopsis submitted as under: “Not Pressed. The CIT(A) had decided the allowability of this expenditure against us. However, he has further held that

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. Ground No. 3:Overdue Interest from non-standard debts amounting to Rs. 27,66,41,513/- 9. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the Assessee in its synopsis submitted as under: “Not Pressed. The CIT(A) had decided the allowability of this expenditure against us. However, he has further held that

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. Ground No. 3:Overdue Interest from non-standard debts amounting to Rs. 27,66,41,513/- 9. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the Assessee in its synopsis submitted as under: “Not Pressed. The CIT(A) had decided the allowability of this expenditure against us. However, he has further held that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. Ground No. 3:Overdue Interest from non-standard debts amounting to Rs. 27,66,41,513/- 9. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the Assessee in its synopsis submitted as under: “Not Pressed. The CIT(A) had decided the allowability of this expenditure against us. However, he has further held that

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPALYADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. Ground No. 3:Overdue Interest from non-standard debts amounting to Rs. 27,66,41,513/- 9. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the Assessee in its synopsis submitted as under: “Not Pressed. The CIT(A) had decided the allowability of this expenditure against us. However, he has further held that

THE HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLEU��, PANCHKULA

Appeal is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings. Ground No. 2 is dismissed.\nGround No. 3:Overdue Interest from non-standard debts amounting\nto Rs.27,66,41,513/-\n9.\nIn this regard Ld. Counsel for the Assessee in its synopsis\nsubmitted as under:\n\"Not Pressed. The CIT(A) had decided the allowability of this\nexpenditure against us. However, he has further held that

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD., PATIALA

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and ground no

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

reassessment proceedings in favour of the assessee company in earlier years and subsequent year and since issue stands covered in favour of the assesee company in its own case for A.Y. 2011-12 , 2014-15 and 2018-19, the grounds of appeal so taken by the assessee was allowed. Again, we find that there is no finding on merits

THE GAROH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

reassessment order was passed on 15.03.2024 assessing total income at Rs.11,31,541/- and disallowing the claim under Section 80P(2)(d

THE GAROH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

reassessment order was passed on 15.03.2024 assessing total income at Rs.11,31,541/- and disallowing the claim under Section 80P(2)(d