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

M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

reopened within four years 9 A.Y. 2009-10 from the end of relevant assessment year. Moreover, the Assessing Officer was having prima facie reason to believe that the assessee company has claimed excess depreciation

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

KATIANI EDUCATION SOCIETY,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

reopening of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer resorting to the provisions of Section 148 of the Act without complying with the mandatory requirements of the said section which is arbitrary and unjustified and as such the assessment merits annulment. 2. That there being no escapement of income leading to formation of reason to believe

KATIANI EDUCATION SOCIETY,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

reopening of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer resorting to the provisions of Section 148 of the Act without complying with the mandatory requirements of the said section which is arbitrary and unjustified and as such the assessment merits annulment. 2. That there being no escapement of income leading to formation of reason to believe

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negi

depreciation of Rs. 1,41,00,000/-. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) afterhearing the assessee, partly allowed the appeal and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer holding that the assessee is entitled to the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, however, upheld the reopening

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation rate of 60 % should not be allowed to assessee. 5. Further various submissions made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings are analyzed as under: • However, first of all it is observed that the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of CISCO System(India) Pvt. Limited is related to the Audit Video Conferencing devices and depreciation

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation rate of 60 % should not be allowed to assessee. 5. Further various submissions made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings are analyzed as under: • However, first of all it is observed that the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of CISCO System(India) Pvt. Limited is related to the Audit Video Conferencing devices and depreciation

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result the captioned appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.547/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation rate of 60 % should not be allowed to assessee. 5. Further various submissions made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings are analyzed as under: • However, first of all it is observed that the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of CISCO System(India) Pvt. Limited is related to the Audit Video Conferencing devices and depreciation

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