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 ,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

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

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

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 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 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

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 SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Depreciation As per I.T. Tax 2082820 6546393 5. It is submitted that the assessee has led complete evidence to support each and every items of the aforesaid revised profit and loss account and revised computation of income which shows a loss of Rs.65,46,393/-. It is submitted that if there is a loss of Rs.65,46,393/- which

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under the Act has been computed” We also gainfully refer to the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Feather Foam Enterprises (P) Ltd. reported in [2008] 296 ITR 342 (Del) wherein at para 11,12, and 13 following is held “ 11. It is well-settled that

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

losses, both current and brought forward are to be allowed as per the provisions of law. As far as the income surrendered and to be assessed u/s 69, 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act, as held above before us, the same is to be subjected to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation claimed by you should not be disallowed as it seems that you are furnishing inaccurate particulars. Please also furnish whether you have claimed such exemption u/s 80- lA in the previous year also or not? 12. Further at para 12 of Form No.10CCB, you have shown sales tax registration No. in which it has ascertained that you were