KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

depreciation in each year and claimed the deduction u/s 35AD and there is a loss, which have been carried forward

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED 2000-1A, SUKHDEV NAGAR FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

depreciation in each year and claimed the deduction u/s 35AD and there is a loss, which have been carried forward

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

Losses: A.Y. Amount of brought Amount of dep. Set Balance carried forward unabsorbed off against the forward to the next depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

forward losses/\nunabsorbed depreciation and as against the returned income of Rs.\n21,05,09,769/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs.44,75,88,075/- under\nthe normal provision and income under section 115JB at Rs.12,83,97,342/-.\n7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

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

forward losses/ unabsorbed depreciation and as against the returned income of Rs. 21,05,09,769/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 44,75,88,075/- under the normal provision and income under section 115JB at Rs. 12,83,97,342/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried

M/S MUKAND LAL COLLEGE SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

losses was not allowed. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who also did not allow the set off by observing in para 5.10 and 5.11 of the impugned order as under: 5.10 The appellant has claimed carried forward of excess of expenditure over income

VIRGO ALUMINUM LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. PR. C.I.T., CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 438/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

forward balances of preceding years. It is not a case where payments are written-off, but it is a case where old outstanding balance on account of sales are written-off. So, there is no error in the Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In regard to the observation

SAEL LIMITED,FARIDKOT ROAD GURUHARSAHAI vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

carry forward and set off of business losses. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the substantive assessment, which is the primary and final determination of income, alone should guide the eligibility of brought forward losses, not a protective addition which is inherently tentative. 6. That, the Ld. Commissionner of Income Tax (Appeals) has just relied upon the findings

M/S MICRO TURNERS,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrisanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 445/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

forward losses of earlier years against our claim of deduction u/s 80IC, which was already set off during the earlier year. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 3. Ground No.1: Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 4. Ground No.2

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.

forward of losses. Chapter has been placed after Chapter IV and V, It comes into play only after the computation of total income under the various heads of income in terms of in terms of Chapter IV has been done. Income falling under Chapter VI is taxed by aggregating the same with the income quantified in terms of Chapter

M/S NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 262/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 20112-13 बनाम M/S Nahar Industrial The Acit, Enterprises, Focal Point, Circle-7, Aayakar Bhawan, Ludhiana. Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaccn3563A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Through Video Conferencing "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Navdeep Sharma, Adv. राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Sandeep Dhaiya, Cit Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2021 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2021 आदेश/Order Per R.L. Negi:

loss at 1,06,36,46,685/- under the normal provisions of the Act and Rs 98,21,17,435/- under section 115JB of the Act, after making addition of Rs. 8,03,17,500/-on account of disallowance u/s 14A read with section 8D of the Income Tax Rules (For short ‘the Rules’), addition

BHAGWATI STEEL PROCESSORS,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

loss account;\nAllowance of unverified brought forward depreciation of Rs.1.53 crore;\nFailure to verify sundry debtor balances, particularly Rs.3.12 crore in the name of JCBL\nPlant II.\n4.1 A show cause notice under Section 263 was issued on 22.01.2025, and the\nassessee submitted its detailed reply on 10.02.2025 along with all supporting\ndocuments and reconciliations.\n4.2

M/S FAMINA KNIT FABS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

depreciation from the surrendered income. 7 A.Y.2014-15 & A.Y.2013-14 4. That provisions of section 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, 72 and 115BBE of the IT. Act, 1961 have been misconstrued and misapplied in the Appellant's case 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify and/or add new Grounds of Appeal before the Appeal is heard and disposed

M/S DEEPAK ELECTRONICS,SOLAN vs. ITO, WARD, SOLAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Loss A/c for A.Y. 2013-14 D. Further without prejudice interestingly Ld. A.O. has held that interest on capital of Rs. 7,17,782/- is to allowed and deduction U/s 80IC is to be disallowed to this extent. However, in the income computation portion A.O has not reduced the profits but only disallowed the deduction U/s. 80IC correctly for argument

M/S PUNJAB STATE COOP MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Us Relates To Whether The A.O. In Remand Proceedings Could Have Enhanced The Disallowance Made Earlier & The Ground Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:

depreciation or business loss of each year and to carry forward lower of two for adjustment which will result in enhancement

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

depreciation is not in respect of the assets rented out either. The assessee is incurring is a business loss and that all that matters. Whatever be the consequences of such losses on assessee's ultimate tax liability does not govern the question whether deduction for expenses could be allowed or not. In the light of these discussions and bearing

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

depreciation is not in respect of the assets rented out either. The assessee is incurring is a business loss and that all that matters. Whatever be the consequences of such losses on assessee's ultimate tax liability does not govern the question whether deduction for expenses could be allowed or not. In the light of these discussions and bearing

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

depreciation is not in respect of the assets rented out either. The assessee is incurring is a business loss and that all that matters. Whatever be the consequences of such losses on assessee's ultimate tax liability does not govern the question whether deduction for expenses could be allowed or not. In the light of these discussions and bearing