SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

Income-tax are applicable in this case. 5.6 Further, after availing ample opportunities the assessee failed to prove the source of investment made in the construction of building is from the business income/disclosed sources. The assessee has only stated that the building has been shown in the balance sheet as capital Work in Progress and not claimed depreciation

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MARSHAL MACHINES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

business after deducting surrendered income considering it as deemed income. The AR submitted that as per the decision in the case of Liberty Plywood (P) Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT 2013 Tax Pub (DT) 0831 (Chd-Trib) 0293, the unabsorbed depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. GPG CATTLE FEED PVT. LTD., MOGA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of\nthe assessee is dismissed

income under the heads pertaining to the profits\nof the business and profession are allowed to be set off against the business\nloss / depreciation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

business losses and depreciation losses may be allowed against the surrendered income of Rs.1,21,85,000/- being a business

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

business income during the relevant period, such deductions cannot be declined. The depreciation is not in respect of the assets

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

business income during the relevant period, such deductions cannot be declined. The depreciation is not in respect of the assets

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

business income during the relevant period, such deductions cannot be declined. The depreciation is not in respect of the assets

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

business income during the relevant period, such deductions cannot be declined. The depreciation is not in respect of the assets

NOOR RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KULLU vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciation as well as the expenses to work out the income / loss of the assessee. 8.10 In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the present case, it can be said that by considering the rental income received by the assessee as “business

SH. MOHIT MITTAL PROP. MITTAL ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

business is to be .allowed deduction either as expenditure or to be capitalized on which depreciation will be allowed. The assessee might have earned income

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

business enterprise then the assessee would be eligible for depreciation @10% which would result into Rs. 17,00,000/- for the year. 6.3 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and summed up the issues vide letter dt. 24/05/2018. 6.4 Based on the facts and arguments we find that it is a neutral preposition to confirm

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

business enterprise then the assessee would be eligible for depreciation @10% which would result into Rs. 17,00,000/- for the year. 6.3 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and summed up the issues vide letter dt. 24/05/2018. 6.4 Based on the facts and arguments we find that it is a neutral preposition to confirm

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

business enterprise then the assessee would be eligible for depreciation @10% which would result into Rs. 17,00,000/- for the year. 6.3 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and summed up the issues vide letter dt. 24/05/2018. 6.4 Based on the facts and arguments we find that it is a neutral preposition to confirm

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

business enterprise then the assessee would be eligible for depreciation @10% which would result into Rs. 17,00,000/- for the year. 6.3 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and summed up the issues vide letter dt. 24/05/2018. 6.4 Based on the facts and arguments we find that it is a neutral preposition to confirm

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

business enterprise then the assessee would be eligible for depreciation @10% which would result into Rs. 17,00,000/- for the year. 6.3 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and summed up the issues vide letter dt. 24/05/2018. 6.4 Based on the facts and arguments we find that it is a neutral preposition to confirm

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

business enterprise then the assessee would be eligible for depreciation @10% which would result into Rs. 17,00,000/- for the year. 6.3 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and summed up the issues vide letter dt. 24/05/2018. 6.4 Based on the facts and arguments we find that it is a neutral preposition to confirm

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

business enterprise then the assessee would be eligible for depreciation @10% which would result into Rs. 17,00,000/- for the year. 6.3 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and summed up the issues vide letter dt. 24/05/2018. 6.4 Based on the facts and arguments we find that it is a neutral preposition to confirm

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

business enterprise then the assessee would be eligible for depreciation @10% which would result into Rs. 17,00,000/- for the year. 6.3 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and summed up the issues vide letter dt. 24/05/2018. 6.4 Based on the facts and arguments we find that it is a neutral preposition to confirm

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

Depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of Trading Exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of Income