DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section 13

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section 13

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section 13

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section 13

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section 13

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section 13

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

depreciation on car were disallowed u/s 13(2)(b) of the Act, since the car was being used by the Chairman of Trust. It was held by the Hon'ble IT AT that no incriminating material was found during the course of search that the cars were being used for personal purpose and for allegation of section 13

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

3,11,689 Disallowance of Interest on Advances related to 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

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

3,11,689 Disallowance of Interest on Advances related to 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

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

Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act.\n3.2 The AO computed the total assessed income at Rs.10,92,96,818/-, making\nthe following key additions:\nΟ\nSurplus taxed as AOP (Denial of Exemption): Rs.10,20,01,948/-\nDisallowance of Interest (on advances to specified persons): Rs.\n10,61,466/-\nΟ\nDisallowance of Salary to Specified Persons: Rs.21

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)

3) for A. Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here the provisions of Section 147 which reads as under: "If the assessing office has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Section 148 to 153, assessee

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”.

13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as such the expenditure of Rs. 10,06,000/- debited by the assessee under the Head 'Conveyance Allowance" is not allowable for the purpose of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 10,06,000/- is disallowed and added to the income of the assessee

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”.

13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as such the expenditure of Rs. 10,06,000/- debited by the assessee under the Head 'Conveyance Allowance" is not allowable for the purpose of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 10,06,000/- is disallowed and added to the income of the assessee

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)

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

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)

13. Apart from the above, we noted from the very reasons recorded by AO, admittedly original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with 153 of the Act in consequent to search conducted under Section 132 of the Act and relevant assessment year is 2012-13 and further the re- opening notice is dated 20.03.2019, which is beyond four

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

13 (Del) • CIT Vs. M/s Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 999/2010 dated 03.08.2010 • CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del) • CIT Vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 • ITO Vs. Somsons & Co., 148 Taxman 21 (Asr) (Mag) • Pandit Bors. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 159 (Punj) • S. Veeriah Reddiar

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)

13. Regarding quantum of deduction under section 54F of the Act, it was submitted that there is no dispute that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act as the same has not been disputed by the Ld. Pr. CIT. As far as the quantum of deduction is concerned wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT has determined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

13) of section 80IA of the Act. The learned Pr. CIT has held that as per the aforesaid explanation to the section work contracts are not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) and apparently the project undertaken by the assessee is covered under the definition of "works contract". Moreover the Assessing Officer has not examined this aspect during