DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

depreciation by the AO qua the exempted units and non-exempt units demonstrate that facts have been seen. In the face of these facts and arguments, the Pr. CIT should have referred to some error in the order passed after considering the new three contracts and the earlier continuing contract of Thural Project which is not so in the facts

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

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

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

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES 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

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

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

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

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

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

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

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT,, 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

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

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

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

CENTRAL TOOL ROOM,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1563/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Central Tool Room, A-5, Phase V, The Dcit,C-1(E), बनाम Focal Point, Chandigarh Ludhiana -141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aadfc8986E

11A of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee under normal provisions treating the assessee as ‘Association of Persons’(‘AOP’). Though, the assessee in this appeal has not contested the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act, however, the sole grievance of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer