VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

10B by the following amounts: - Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Name of undertakings Anant-II Anant-III Interest From Banks & 6,133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

10B by the following amounts: - Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Name of undertakings Anant-II Anant-III Interest From Banks & 6,133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

10B by the following amounts: - Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Name of undertakings Anant-II Anant-III Interest From Banks & 6,133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

10B by the following amounts: - Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Name of undertakings Anant-II Anant-III Interest From Banks & 6,133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

10B by the following amounts: - Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Name of undertakings Anant-II Anant-III Interest From Banks & 6,133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

10B by the following amounts: - Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Name of undertakings Anant-II Anant-III Interest From Banks & 6,133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back

VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,,

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

4) Provision for fall in value Of investment = Rs.47,33,280/- A.Y.2003-04 Total: = Rs.61,94,519/- 43. The Ld. counsel for assessee also contended that if any allocation was to be done it should be of the net expenses incurred by the assessee after reducing income earned by the head office which the Ld. counsel for assessee contended amounted

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LTD.,, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

4) Provision for fall in value Of investment = Rs.47,33,280/- A.Y.2003-04 Total: = Rs.61,94,519/- 43. The Ld. counsel for assessee also contended that if any allocation was to be done it should be of the net expenses incurred by the assessee after reducing income earned by the head office which the Ld. counsel for assessee contended amounted

ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

4. Further, for the sake of argument, it is being submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer has applied the "net profit rate " and in this regard, it is submitted for the sake of argument only that, even if the net profit rate is applied, the Ld. Assessing Officer was bound to allow at least the depreciation and interest as debited

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATIALA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

Depreciation claimed on building under construction) 3. 85% of Rs. 11,34,16,023/- Rs. 9,64,03,619/- 4. Amount utilized by the Society Rs. 4,32,85,738/- 5. Difference Rs. 5,31,04,881/- 6. Less allowable capital expenditure 49,38,863 other than buildings under construction as shown by the assessee. 7. Buildings under construction

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

Depreciation claimed on building under construction) 3. 85% of Rs. 11,34,16,023/- Rs. 9,64,03,619/- 4. Amount utilized by the Society Rs. 4,32,85,738/- 5. Difference Rs. 5,31,04,881/- 6. Less allowable capital expenditure 49,38,863 other than buildings under construction as shown by the assessee. 7. Buildings under construction

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

10B) is enclosed herewith.\nMadam, the amount of depreciation of Rs.6,93,68,150/- was not included\nwhile calculating utilization of amount on account of revenue expenditure and\ncapital expenditure. Moreover, assessee society has utilized more funds then the\nreceipts of the society so it is therefore requested that no adverse inference may\nkindly be drawn against assessee society

SHAPING CAREERS EDUCATION SOCIETY,PANCHKULA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD,, AMBALA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Denying The Exemption By The Cpc.

sections 11 and 12 of the Act was denied on the ground that the assessee had filed its audit report in Form No. 10B instead of the prescribed Form No. 10BB as mandated under Rule 17B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The impugned order u/s 250 dated

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

depreciation if form 3AA was not filed along with the return of income but same was filed during the assessment proceedings before final order of assessment was made. 1. Allowability of deduction u/s 80-IB if the Form 10CCB has not been field along with the return of income but before the final order of assessment was made. Since both

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 23/09/2010 declaring NIL income by claiming that the entire income was exempt under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 30/03/2011. Later