DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

section 11 4 Profit of chemist shop not a single penny was paid to any utilized by the trustees trustee in any shape by the trust nor the A.O. has given any instance of payment to trustees out of chemist shop HUGE PROFIT ---- 1 Trust is earning huge profit Firstly profit of 5.96% to 14.08 % is that is from

M/S SHIVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BILASPUR vs. ACIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

depreciation which is ITA No. 490/Chd/2017- M/s Shiva Educational Society, Bilaspur (H.P.) 2 mandatory and allowable as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and as interpreted by Hon'ble Courts. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not allowing the benefit of provisions of Section 11 and 12

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”.

section 12 i.e. 33% ( 85% minus %age of application of income in the year under consideration ) should not be added in your return of income. Your reply should reach to the office of the undersigned on or before 26-03-2013 at 3.30 P.M. 16. In response to the above letter, the assessee society vide its letter dated

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”.

section 12 i.e. 33% ( 85% minus %age of application of income in the year under consideration ) should not be added in your return of income. Your reply should reach to the office of the undersigned on or before 26-03-2013 at 3.30 P.M. 16. In response to the above letter, the assessee society vide its letter dated

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

depreciation, if any allowed to the assessee after the said date and increased or diminished as the case may be by any adjustment made under clause (fit) of sub-section (2) of Section 10: * * * This section was inserted in the Income Tax Act, 1922 by the Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax (Amendment) Act, 1947 (22 of 1947) which received

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. 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

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 under Section 32 of the Act. 12. It was further submitted that for the financial year relevant to impugned

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 under Section 32 of the Act. 12. It was further submitted that for the financial year relevant to impugned

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

12,60,83,332/- as on 31.03.2011 mainly due to claim of depreciation, interest and salary as there is no corresponding income receipt. The income generated through school has been reflected in the books of Delhi Public School. The consolidated result of the society and the School is excess of income over expenditure. This is regular practice of the society

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

12,60,83,332/- as on 31.03.2011 mainly due to claim of depreciation, interest and salary as there is no corresponding income receipt. The income generated through school has been reflected in the books of Delhi Public School. The consolidated result of the society and the School is excess of income over expenditure. This is regular practice of the society

M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

12,60,83,332/- as on 31.03.2011 mainly due to claim of depreciation, interest and salary as there is no corresponding income receipt. The income generated through school has been reflected in the books of Delhi Public School. The consolidated result of the society and the School is excess of income over expenditure. This is regular practice of the society

GAUSHALA TRUST SOCIETY,AMBALA CITY vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, therefore,

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptagaushala Trust Society, Vs. The Cit(Exemptions), Spatu Road, Central Revenue Building, Ambala City. 5Th Floor, Sector-17E, Chandigarh. Pan: Aabag6754D (Appellant) (Respondent)

12.A for grant of registration is rejected.” 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before us, raising the following ground of appeal: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in laws and facts and law in not registering the applicant Trust u/s 12AA.” 5. During the course of hearing before

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

12,09,345 AME Course Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 14,23,348 Course Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (FY 2013- 2,90,55,422 14) Excess income over expenditure 1,65,94,302 Total Taxable income 5,23,74,106 ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 4 Assessment year 2015-16 Particular Amount (In INR) Returned Income

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

12,09,345 AME Course Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 14,23,348 Course Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (FY 2013- 2,90,55,422 14) Excess income over expenditure 1,65,94,302 Total Taxable income 5,23,74,106 ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 4 Assessment year 2015-16 Particular Amount (In INR) Returned Income

ACIT, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, PANCHKULA

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2004-05 The Asst. Cit Vs. M/S Haryana State Agricultural Panchkula Circle, Marketing Board, Sector-6 Panchkula Panchkula

12. The ground no. 2 of the Revenue appeal for the A.Y. 2008-09 is as under: 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the depreciation of Rs. 89,04,073/- by way of disallowance of depreciation made by the Assessing Officer? 13. Brief facts of the case

DCIT, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, PANCHKULA

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2004-05 The Asst. Cit Vs. M/S Haryana State Agricultural Panchkula Circle, Marketing Board, Sector-6 Panchkula Panchkula

12. The ground no. 2 of the Revenue appeal for the A.Y. 2008-09 is as under: 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the depreciation of Rs. 89,04,073/- by way of disallowance of depreciation made by the Assessing Officer? 13. Brief facts of the case