BABA HIRA SINGH BHATTAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,LEHRAGAGA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of depreciation as application of income. Accordingly, the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.51,69,258/- as application of income

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs. 10,34,306/- as per para 7.3 of his order. 5. That

M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs. 10,34,306/- as per para 7.3 of his order. 5. That

M/S RECORDERS AND MEDICARE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.653 & 654/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

Disallowance of Rs.16935691/- on account of depreciation on technical know-how.” 4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that the disallowance

M/S RECORDERS AND MEDICARE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.653 & 654/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

Disallowance of Rs.16935691/- on account of depreciation on technical know-how.” 4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that the disallowance

DCIT-CC-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S LAXMI ENERGY & FOODS LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 33/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Laxmi Energy & Foods बनाम Ltd., Central Circle-Iii, Sco 18-19, Sector 9-D, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl3147J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

depreciation cannot be disallowed. 4. In AY 2008-09, the depreciation on power plant was disallowed, but the same had been

S.D.S. ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

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

disallowance of depreciation on account of reallocation of depreciation between the eligible and non eligible unit amounting to Rs.5,56,656/-. It was pointed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowance of depreciation & additional depreciation as tfle assessee company has failed to establish that the assets were put to use before

M/S SUPERFINE KNITTERS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Superfine Knitters Ltd., Vs. The Acit, 269, Industrial Area-A, Circle-7, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. Aadcs4217P

disallow excess depreciation claim on this plant and machinery. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the excess depreciation claimed on the plant

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Disallowance of Donation 1,10,000 Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Disallowance of Donation 1,10,000 Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable

ACIT, PATIALA vs. M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

disallowance of excess depreciation on ATM.” 29. Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer had allowed depreciation on ATMs, treating them as plant

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,PATIALA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

disallowance of excess depreciation on ATM.” 29. Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer had allowed depreciation on ATMs, treating them as plant

DCIT, SIRHIND vs. M/S SOOD PLASTICS PVT. LTD., RAJPURA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowed the depreciation claimed on the building. The said disallowance has been further upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). We have

M/S SOOD PLASTICS (P) LTD.,RAJPURA vs. DCIT, MANDI GOBINDGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

disallowed the depreciation claimed on the building. The said disallowance has been further upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). We have

SHRI HARISH GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1378/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Harish Goyal, Vs. The Acit, H.No. 3126, Circle 4(1), बनाम Sector 28-D Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aavpg3228R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation and interest on loan in respect of car purchased by the assessee deserve disallowance as against made by the Ld. AO @ 100% even

BHWANI INDUSTIRES LIMITED,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhwani Industries Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Village-Ajnali, G.T. Road, Central Circle, Mandi Gobindgarh. Patiala. Pan No. : Aabcb5105H (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation was also disallowed by the AO. Accordingly, the excess claim of the depreciation to the tune of Rs. 25,39,875/- was disallowed

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)

disallowance of depreciation on such cost of construction, we find that there is no legal and justifiable basis to disallow