MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

depreciation against the same. Issue No.2 : non-examination by the AO of the expenses claimed by the assessee 25. Taking up the next issue raised by the Ld. Pr.CIT, the same relates to non-examination by the AO of the claim of expenses by the assessee particularly, as per the Ld.Pr.CIT, in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

depreciable assets] against the declared short term capital gain of Rs.2,09,00,272/-, resulting into under-statement of capital gain to the tune of Rs.25,90,272/-, subject to the finding that the AO may ensure that for working out short term capital gain, set off of WDV of all and (AY 2006-07) Embrocia Farms

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

depreciable assets] against the declared short term capital gain of Rs.2,09,00,272/-, resulting into under-statement of capital gain to the tune of Rs.25,90,272/-, subject to the finding that the AO may ensure that for working out short term capital gain, set off of WDV of all and (AY 2006-07) Embrocia Farms