LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

depreciation and interest on car loan.\n7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.\nAdditional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central failed to\napply due application of mind in giving approval u/s 153D of the\nAct and as such the order deserves to be quashed on this ground\nalone.\n8. That the appellant craves leave

LAKHVIR KAUR,MOHALI, CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-2 CHD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are\nallowed

depreciation and interest on car loan.\n7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.\nAdditional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central failed to\napply due application of mind in giving approval u/s 153D of the\nAct and as such the order deserves to be quashed on this ground\nalone.\n8. That the appellant craves leave

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

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs. 9,01,873/- without any justification. ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 3 12. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 3.1 The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds : 1. That the approval u/s 153D was granted

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)

131/- only. Thus the surrendered income of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- on the account of “the discrepancies in the books of accounts” was not declared by the assesee in the Income Tax Return independently. Thus it was seen that the assessee had failed to honour the voluntary surrender that was made by him vide surrender letter dt. 05/03/2014

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)

depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs.5,62,672/- without any justification. 11. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 2.1 The following additional Grounds have also been taken by the Assessee: 1. That the approval u/s 153D was granted by the JCIT without application of mind

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)

depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs.5,62,672/- without any justification. 11. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 2.1 The following additional Grounds have also been taken by the Assessee: 1. That the approval u/s 153D was granted by the JCIT without application of mind

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

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

depreciation of car without any discussion in the Appellate Order. 11. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. ITA 738/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 3 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds : 1. That the approval u/s 153D was granted by the JCIT without application

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

Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest

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

Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

depreciation of such building would result in double taxation. 6.9 It was submitted that as the assessee has duly paid tax on all such amount of surrender made by the assessee, therefore, making additions of the same amount to the total income of the assessee are wholly invalid as it results 'double taxation and therefore, against the principles of natural

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

ANISH GARG,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-4, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 of the IT Act, 1961 has categorically\nadmitted that he is not maintaining any books of accounts. Further perusal of the\nreturn of income for the assessment year 2012-13, it has been noticed that the\nassessee has stated \"Y\" against the col \"Are you liable to maintain accounts as\nper section 44AA\"?. Even otherwise during the course

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

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)

section 80IA of the Act. In the impugned case, which is the succeeding year, on the very same set of facts the findings of the preceding year on the fact that the assessee was carrying out eligible infrastructure project and not works contract, cannot now be disturbed, which is exactly what has been stated by the High Court

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)

131 of the IT Act to substantiate the findings. In the reported case the assessee is manufacturing Telephone Cable Jointing Kits and not Telecom Parts used for installation of mobile towers. The word telephone has got specific meaning thereby referring to telephone set or its parts whereas word Telecom has wider connotation. On the other hand assessee firm M/s. Asha

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)

131 of the IT Act to substantiate the findings. In the reported case the assessee is manufacturing Telephone Cable Jointing Kits and not Telecom Parts used for installation of mobile towers. The word telephone has got specific meaning thereby referring to telephone set or its parts whereas word Telecom has wider connotation. On the other hand assessee firm M/s. Asha

M/S PUNJAB TISSUE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal, With The Permission Of The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Taking Note

section 250(6) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 10270/16-17 dated 15.11.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh gravelly erred in upholding the action of the ld. Assessing Officer who had made