SH. MAHESH CHUGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,979 (19,33,202-3,64,223) Claim of Assessee in his computation : 15.01,269 Difference : 67,710 (assessee may correct the figure) (B) Investment in resl. Property (3113) taken at Rs. 2,17,35,000 (without renovation claim of 10,15,000) Deduction eligibility : 2,17,35,000x2,04,51,233/2

SHRI SATISH KUMAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

68,676/- 19.10.2015 Land 2. 245 Commercial 23.01.2015 1,54,53,202/- 15,45,320/- 1,39,07,882/- 10.07.2015 Land 5.2 The assessee appended note to the aforesaid details of the compensation received as under: Note: As per certificate from the O/o the Collector Land Acquisition-cum-S.D.M. Sangrur, the above said Agriculture and Commercial Land had been

SMT. URMILA GARG,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

68,676/- 19.10.2015 Land 2. 245 Commercial 23.01.2015 1,54,53,202/- 15,45,320/- 1,39,07,882/- 10.07.2015 Land 5.2 The assessee appended note to the aforesaid details of the compensation received as under: Note: As per certificate from the O/o the Collector Land Acquisition-cum-S.D.M. Sangrur, the above said Agriculture and Commercial Land had been

M/S CHITTOSHO MOTORS,PATIALA vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

68,601/- being 10% of the expenses as against Rs. 13,37,202/- being 20% of the expenses claimed under the heads Business Promotion, Festival, Staff Welfare, Tea & Cold Drink, Tour & Travelling, General & Misc. Expenses, Misc. & General Expenses, Repair and Maintenance, Vehicles Running & Maintenance and Workshop Expenses totaling Rs. 66,86,011/- which is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. Disallowance

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

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

68,698/- Duty b) Export 1,01,28,889/- 6,87,98,501/- 24,02,439/- Turnover of Trading goods 6. (i) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not increasing profits of business eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC by 10% of interest received. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the order.\n3.1 The grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1.\nWhether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the order.\n4\n3.1 The grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the order.\n\n4\n3.1\nThe grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1.\nWhether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the order.\n4\n3.1\nThe grounds of appeal as taken by the Department are\nreproduced as under bearing ITA No. 921/Chd/2024:\n1.\nWhether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT\n(A) was justified to restricted the addition made by the A.O on account of\nsuppression of sales of Rs.11

SSMT. CHARU AGGARWAL,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

68 STC 398 ; [1988] (Suppl.) SCC 308, (SC) • CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi), • DIT vs. Medical Trust of the Seventh Day Adventists [2017] 84 taxmann.com 202 (Madras HC) • Jayam and company vs. Assistant Commissioner &Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 125 • Loknathgoenka [2019] 109 taxmann.com 203 (Patna) (FB) • Govind Das and others

KALANEEDHI JEWELLERS LLP,PATIALA vs. DCIT-CC, PATIALA

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

68 STC 398 ; [1988] (Suppl.) SCC 308, (SC) • CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi), • DIT vs. Medical Trust of the Seventh Day Adventists [2017] 84 taxmann.com 202 (Madras HC) • Jayam and company vs. Assistant Commissioner &Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 125 • Loknathgoenka [2019] 109 taxmann.com 203 (Patna) (FB) • Govind Das and others