SH. MARTIN EKKA S/O SH. LALSAY EKKA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD -1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAEPE4364R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.03.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 आदेश/ORDER The present appeal has been

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

10B of the Act, at para 38 of our order above will apply for purposes of section 80HHC also, following which, we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee. 67. Ground No.5(vi) raised by the assessee reads as under: “5. (vi) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not allowing deduction

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

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

10B of the Act, at para 38 of our order above will apply for purposes of section 80HHC also, following which, we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee. 67. Ground No.5(vi) raised by the assessee reads as under: “5. (vi) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not allowing deduction

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES 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

10B. (ii) Head Office Expenses has been allocated to profits/losses earned by the EOU's of the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) Was erred in law and on the facts while allocating expenses amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to exempted dividend income earned by the appellant and disallowing the same under section 14A of Income

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

10B. (ii) Head Office Expenses has been allocated to profits/losses earned by the EOU's of the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) Was erred in law and on the facts while allocating expenses amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to exempted dividend income earned by the appellant and disallowing the same under section 14A of Income

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT,, 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

10B. (ii) Head Office Expenses has been allocated to profits/losses earned by the EOU's of the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) Was erred in law and on the facts while allocating expenses amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to exempted dividend income earned by the appellant and disallowing the same under section 14A of Income

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

10B. (ii) Head Office Expenses has been allocated to profits/losses earned by the EOU's of the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) Was erred in law and on the facts while allocating expenses amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to exempted dividend income earned by the appellant and disallowing the same under section 14A of Income

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT,, 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

10B. (ii) Head Office Expenses has been allocated to profits/losses earned by the EOU's of the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) Was erred in law and on the facts while allocating expenses amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to exempted dividend income earned by the appellant and disallowing the same under section 14A of Income

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., 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

10B. (ii) Head Office Expenses has been allocated to profits/losses earned by the EOU's of the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) Was erred in law and on the facts while allocating expenses amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to exempted dividend income earned by the appellant and disallowing the same under section 14A of Income

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

10B. (ii) Head Office Expenses has been allocated to profits/losses earned by the EOU's of the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) Was erred in law and on the facts while allocating expenses amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to exempted dividend income earned by the appellant and disallowing the same under section 14A of Income

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

10B. (ii) Head Office Expenses has been allocated to profits/losses earned by the EOU's of the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) Was erred in law and on the facts while allocating expenses amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to exempted dividend income earned by the appellant and disallowing the same under section 14A of Income

ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

68,20,164/- for certain overdrafts limits and for depreciation, the complete particulars have been given in the audited balance sheet and for which, the Ld. Assessing Officer had not raised any doubt. The total depreciation claimed has been to the tune of Rs. 1,48,84,802/- and the fact that the depreciation is to be allowed, even

ANJU BALA L/H OM PARKASH,PINJORE vs. ITO- WARD-3, PANCHKULA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 249/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Anju Bala बनाम The Ito, Legal Heir Of Shri Om Parkash Ward-3, C/O Dhiman Bansal & Panchkula Associates, 68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore 134102 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aavpp0395C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Dr. Danish Abdullah, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश/Order

68, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore 134102 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAVPP0395C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by :Dr. Danish Abdullah, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

10B during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, according to the provisions of section 12A(1) (b) of the Income –tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 11 are not applicable in the case of the assessee . Accordingly, the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 and 12 are hereby rejected. Without prejudice to the above, against

THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATIALA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

10B during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, according to the provisions of section 12A(1) (b) of the Income –tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 11 are not applicable in the case of the assessee . Accordingly, the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 and 12 are hereby rejected. Without prejudice to the above, against

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

10B under section 12A(b) of the Act and if it is violated, the trust could not be said to be genuinely carrying out its activities. Thus, the requirement of recording of all receipts/expenses in the books is of paramount importance to meet the condition of application of income u/s 11 (1)(a) and in absence of all receipts/expenses

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

10B under section 12A(b) of the Act and if it is violated, the trust could not be said to be genuinely carrying out its activities. Thus, the requirement of recording of all receipts/expenses in the books is of paramount importance to meet the condition of application of income u/s 11 (1)(a) and in absence of all receipts/expenses

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

10B under section 12A(b) of the Act and if it is violated, the trust could not be said to be genuinely carrying out its activities. Thus, the requirement of recording of all receipts/expenses in the books is of paramount importance to meet the condition of application of income u/s 11 (1)(a) and in absence of all receipts/expenses