DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

b) is against the provisions of the Act. Even so keeping in view the market condition since the monies have to be raised at a faster pace, payment of 1% excess interest cannot be said to be unreasonable and hence the addition made is hereby deleted. 5.5 As a result, appeal of the Revenue on this ground is dismissed

KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

b) is against the provisions of the Act. Even so keeping in view the market condition since the monies have to be raised at a faster pace, payment of 1% excess interest cannot be said to be unreasonable and hence the addition made is hereby deleted. 5.5 As a result, appeal of the Revenue on this ground is dismissed

SH. SUNIL KHULLAR,SAMRALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavi.T.A. No.137/Chandi/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Sunil Khullar........................... ………................……............…..….. Appellant C/O Sat Parkash & Company, Ward No.7, H.No.10, Kang Mohalla, Samrala. [Pan:Azqpk0380E] Vs. Dcit, Circle-Khanna....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri J. S. Bhasin, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sarabjeet Singh, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2022 Order

section 145(3) when the books were found to be incomplete and incorrect, rather than making superfluously inflated additions u/s 68 and 40A(3), and rejection of this ground by Id.CIT(A) is arbitrary and unjustified. 6. That the order under appeal, to the extent disputed herein, is against law and facts of the case. 3. A perusal

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

2. Mod Furniture, assessee has shown cash payment of Rs.18,000/- on 21.06.2006, Rs. 13,172/- on 24.06.2006, Rs. 16,032/- on 1.07.2006 and Rs. 6,610/- on 2.07.2006. On the other hand in regular books of account provided, during assessment proceedings, these cash payments are reflected on 15.03.2007, 14.03.2007, 2.02.2007 and on 6.02.2007 respectively. It means cash was paid

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

2. Mod Furniture, assessee has shown cash payment of Rs.18,000/- on 21.06.2006, Rs. 13,172/- on 24.06.2006, Rs. 16,032/- on 1.07.2006 and Rs. 6,610/- on 2.07.2006. On the other hand in regular books of account provided, during assessment proceedings, these cash payments are reflected on 15.03.2007, 14.03.2007, 2.02.2007 and on 6.02.2007 respectively. It means cash was paid

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

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

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

40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite being given ample opportunity to do so?” 7.4 As the matter stands adjudicated, following the ratio laid down which is squarely applicable to the appeals before us, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are hereby dismissed. 8. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IB on NOIDA Unit

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

b) During the assessment proceedings AO has observed that Most of the supplier stated that “Due to bad health and loss in business I could not file my ITR for FY 2020-21. Further, the appellant has also not furnished copy of ITR of the parties. (C) During the assessment proceedings, regarding entries in bank statement the same were submitted

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, the assessment order was treated as erroneous and ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 32 prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue . The Tribunal quashed the revisional order and restored the order of the AO, following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in “Rajal Enterprises

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, the assessment order was treated as erroneous and ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 32 prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue . The Tribunal quashed the revisional order and restored the order of the AO, following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in “Rajal Enterprises

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, the assessment order was treated as erroneous and ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 32 prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue . The Tribunal quashed the revisional order and restored the order of the AO, following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in “Rajal Enterprises

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian 20,59,27 8 2,83,000 4,62,572 25,66,84 4 4,00,00 0 2

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian 20,59,27 8 2,83,000 4,62,572 25,66,84 4 4,00,00 0 2

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

68 8 4,94,000 3,51,451 D/o Shri R.K. Chhabra, # 3085 Sector 21 D, Chandigarh Sanjay Sardana Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest Salary Rent Interest 6. S/o Shri Gian 20,59,27 8 2,83,000 4,62,572 25,66,84 4 4,00,00 0 2