DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

11\nand 12, even though the AO has proved that income of the society has\nbeen used to provide benefit \"directly or indirectly\" to any person\nreferred to in section 13(3) i.e. specified persons ignoring the detailed\nfindings given by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order?\nii.\nWhether on the (acts and in the circumstances of the case

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

3) of the Income Tax Act but took a contrary stand in these years. He submitted that as per the proviso to Section 11(2), the period of the stay is required to be excluded from the alleged ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 18 period of five years, therefore, assessee is protected by the proviso appended with

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

3) of the Income Tax Act but took a contrary stand in these years. He submitted that as per the proviso to Section 11(2), the period of the stay is required to be excluded from the alleged ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 18 period of five years, therefore, assessee is protected by the proviso appended with

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)

Section 11(6), if acquisition of an asset has been claimed as application of income u/s 11 by the assessee in the concerned assessment year or in any other previous year, depreciation would not ITA 870/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 35 be allowed. In the present case, as observed from the record and as not disputed before us, no such claim

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)

11. In this regard, during the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the appellant had filed its original return of income on 28.09.2011 declaring profit of Rs 21,05,90,768/- which was set off against the brought forward losses. However, tax was paid under sections 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, notice under section

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)

3) of section 143, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well-known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

11. In reply, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee's case itself defeats its purpose for the reason that in para 7 and 8, the AO while recording reasons has clearly admitted that the assessee's case falls under the proviso but ITA 514/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 18 subsequently in para 9, they invoked clause

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

11(1) read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(2), and 13(3).\n10. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this denial, observing in Para 5.3 and 5.6 that the\nAssessee's failure to furnish the separate books of accounts for incidental\nactivities (like selling books, stationery, and running hostels) before the AO\nprevented the verification of whether the charges were

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

11  Vikash Polymers [ 2010] 194 Taxmann.com 57 (Del)  Krishna Cop Box (P) Ltd. (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 243 (All) The Ld. AR thus concluded that where the AO has made necessary enquiry and applied his mind, Commissioner or PCIT cannot exercise his revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. 13.9 The Ld. AR then contended that non passing of elaborate

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Depreciation and Amortization Expenses 4,54,86,758 Other Expenses 3,68,07,307 Total 11,53,61,815 Expenditure (B) Profit from COGEN Division (A-B) 25,88,20,248 (37,41,82,063-11,53,61,815) For clarification of Doubt, we are enclosing Segment-wise copies of statement of Profit & Loss Account

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB 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)

Depreciation and Amortization Expenses 4,54,86,758 Other Expenses 3,68,07,307 Total 11,53,61,815 Expenditure (B) Profit from COGEN Division (A-B) 25,88,20,248 (37,41,82,063-11,53,61,815) For clarification of Doubt, we are enclosing Segment-wise copies of statement of Profit & Loss Account

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

11. It was submitted that merely because there is no discussion in the body of the assessment order, it does not make the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue so long as the matter has been duly examined during the course of original assessment order and which also found mentioned in the office note

M/S HEADMASTER SALOON PVT.LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on page 3 para 6 has observed as follows: “ 6. On perusal of the above reply, it was seen that the assessee had not declared the voluntary disclosure / surrender of income that was made by him during the course of survey operation.” 16. During the course of the assessment proceedings

ARYA COLLEGE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Depreciation as per books of accounts of | Rs.12,40,731/-\nthe assessee (Mandatory)\n| TOTAL INCOME | -66,923/-\n4. The CPC, Bangalore has processed the return but made\naddition of Rs.11,39,77,899/- by denying the benefit of\nSection 11 and 12 of the Act. It is pertinent to observe that if\nbenefit of Section 11

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. The Ld. AO in the assessment order dt. 26/12/2016 has stated that return declaring income of profit of business is of Rs. 31,54,889/- filed on 29/11/2014 and same is set off against depreciation of 2012-13. The balance depreciation is as under: A.Y Amount of brought forward Amount

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

3,00,000/- received from Tirloki Nath Singla HUF without any justification. 11. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of Income deposited in cash without any justification. 12. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

3,00,000/- received from Tirloki Nath Singla HUF without any justification. 11. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of Income deposited in cash without any justification. 12. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on surmises

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. THE PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3) of the Income Tax Act determining taxable income at Rs.25,43,66,930/-. It emerges out from the record that assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.25,43,66,930/-. The AO was of the view that by Finance Act, 2015, sub-section (6) of Section 11