ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

272/- under normal provisions and an income of Rs.62,98,757/- as per the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. The AO was in receipt of information that per investigations carried out by DGGI, GST Intelligence, Delhi Zone and by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, it was determined that the said concern M/s Gauri Shankar

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

272/- under normal provisions and an income of Rs.62,98,757/- as per the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. The AO was in receipt of information that per investigations carried out by DGGI, GST Intelligence, Delhi Zone and by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, it was determined that the said concern M/s Gauri Shankar

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

68, Sector 20, Panchkula. The alleged sub-contractors firms have been used by the assessee company to book bogus expenses to bring down its overall profits. The relevant portions of the information are reproduced as under: " 4. During the course of search, Sh. Gurinder Kumar Garg was confronted with a sheet containing list of sub-contractors which was seized

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)

272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments

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)

272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments

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)

272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments

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)

272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments

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)

272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments

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)

272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments

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)

272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments

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

Appeal is allowed

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

272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H HC) (ii) Agya Ram (2016) 96 CCH 103 (Del HC) dtd. 01.08.2016 (iii) Orient Craft Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 536 (Delhi HC) (iv) Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561) (2010) (SC) (v) Asian Paints Ltd. (308 ITR 195) (2009) (Bom. HC) (vi) Asteroids Trading & Investments

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.

section 133A was conducted on 15/09/2016 at the business premises of the assessee and no document related to wages record was found and that the large number of bills & blank bill books of various parties were found which were impounded. The A.O. asked the assessee to provide the details of jobs done and provide site wise material consumption

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

68,771/-) is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee as being the expenditure not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and is added back to the total income of the assessee." 13. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submissions dt. 14.12.2017 which

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 35D of the Act. 46. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance so made by the A.O. 47. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that may be the expenses incurred for acquiring lease rights of fibre links did not fall within the definition and scope of preliminary expenses under the provisions of section 35D, however

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 35D of the Act. 46. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance so made by the A.O. 47. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that may be the expenses incurred for acquiring lease rights of fibre links did not fall within the definition and scope of preliminary expenses under the provisions of section 35D, however

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 35D of the Act. 46. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance so made by the A.O. 47. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that may be the expenses incurred for acquiring lease rights of fibre links did not fall within the definition and scope of preliminary expenses under the provisions of section 35D, however

M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the\nappeal of the assessee is allowed

68,771/-) is disallowed and added back to the\ntotal income of the assessee as being the expenditure not wholly and\nexclusively for the purposes of business and is added back to the total\nincome of the assessee.\"\n13. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)\nand furnished the written submissions dt. 14.12.2017 which

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)

68 suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal" (Placitum 13, Pg 7) (ii). Before the Supreme Court, the issue which arose was whether loan given by the assessee company to its sister concern would disentitle the assessee company from debiting the interest paid to the banks as revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court held