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)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed." 30. A perusal of the above provision shows that the power to assess or re- assess the escaped income for any assessment year has been conferred upon the Assessing Officer where he has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, in cases

RAJESH KHANNA,NEELKANTH PLYWOOD, YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

depreciation allowance or any other, allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form of the Assessment Year 2018-19. 3. This notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of the PCIT, Panchkula accorded on date 30/03/2022

INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. RAJESH KHANNA, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

depreciation allowance or any other, allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form of the Assessment Year 2018-19. 3. This notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of the PCIT, Panchkula accorded on date 30/03/2022

VIMAL ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, PATIALA, PUNJAB

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

depreciation at rate of 60 per cent by treating it as computer - Assessing Officer sought to reopen case on ground

SUDARSHAN JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, AMBALA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 21-03-2022. The sole grievance of the assessee is denial of claim of depreciation / additional depreciation for Rs.58.42 Lacs. The assessee has filed additional ground No.5 assailing the reopening

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

reopening is set aside and quashed, therefore, the ground no. 2\nraised on the merits of the addition becomes infructuous.\n\nINTHIS CASE THE JUDGMENT OF CHANDIGARH BENCH OF BABA\nKARTAR SINGH DUKKI EDUCATIONAL TRUST V/S ITO 158 ITD 0965 HAS\nBEEN CONSIDERED AND FOLLOWED.\n\nShri Allen De Noronha V/s ACIT, in ITA No.338/LKW/2015 - LUCKNOW-TRIB\nThe objections

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

reopened under section\n147 after recording reasons relating to taxability of exchange rate gains earned\nby the assessee on GDR proceeds which were not repatriated to India\nimmediately and thus income has escaped assessment and notice under\nsection 148 was issued on 26/03/2017. Thereafter after considering the\nsubmissions filed by the assessee, the AO framed the assessment under section\n143

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred relevant\nyear).\nas the assessment\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year,\nhe may, subject to the provisions\nof sections

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the\nrelevant assessment\nyear).\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred relevant\nyear).\nto\nas the\nassessment\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the\nrelevant\nyear).\nassessment\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

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)

reopening an assessment in respect of another assessment year without following the provisions of the Act. " 23. Ld.DR, on the other, hand relying upon para 11 of the order stated that certain issues could have been disturbed in the succeeding years also. Ld.DR stated that merely because the assessee had been allowed claim in the Is' year did not mean

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

reopening of assessment are insufficient and invalid based on incomplete and wrong interpretation of facts during survey operations.” 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at the Bar that he does not wish to press Ground No.3. Rejected as not pressed. 4. Apropos Ground Nos. 1 and 2, the facts are that the assessee claimed

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

reopening of assessment are insufficient and invalid based on incomplete and wrong interpretation of facts during survey operations.” 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at the Bar that he does not wish to press Ground No.3. Rejected as not pressed. 4. Apropos Ground Nos. 1 and 2, the facts are that the assessee claimed

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

reopening of assessment are insufficient and invalid based on incomplete and wrong interpretation of facts during survey operations.” 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at the Bar that he does not wish to press Ground No.3. Rejected as not pressed. 4. Apropos Ground Nos. 1 and 2, the facts are that the assessee claimed

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

reopening of assessment are insufficient and invalid based on incomplete and wrong interpretation of facts during survey operations.” 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at the Bar that he does not wish to press Ground No.3. Rejected as not pressed. 4. Apropos Ground Nos. 1 and 2, the facts are that the assessee claimed

M/S SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

reopening of assessment, entire assessment is not opened before the Assessing Officer - Geometric Software Solutions Co. Ltd. v.ACIT [2009] 32 SOT 428 (Mum.)(Trib.). 18. It was accordingly submitted that none of the grounds of appeal survive for consideration of the ITAT bench except ground No.6 of the assessee's appeal which is anyways withdrawn by the assessee during

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

depreciation, maintenance costs, and insurance for vehicles, one of which was a Toyota Fortuner. The AO suspected that the vehicles might have been used partly for personal purposes and not entirely for business. As a result, and in line with decisions made in previous years, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.60,000 on an ad-hoc basis from

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reopened by the AO specifically on the issue of claim of 100% deduction under section 80-IC of the Act and our reference was drawn to the reasons so recorded u/s 148 and the contents of which read as under: “1. Brief details of the Assessee: The assessee has filed its return of income