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)

133(6)/ 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 TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

133(6) of the Act, or u/s 131 thereof. It stands made out that the assessee had earned the income of Rs.7 lacs from leasing out of vehicle of the company. The copy of account of hire charges, which had been furnished before both the taxing authorities, stands filed before us also. It formed part of the books of account

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)

133(6) of the Act, or u/s 131 thereof. It stands made out that the assessee had earned the income of Rs.7 lacs from leasing out of vehicle of the company. The copy of account of hire charges, which had been furnished before both the taxing authorities, stands filed before us also. It formed part of the books of account

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

133(6) of the Act G) That CISCO has claimed depreciation on the assets/equipment as owner, which has been allowed to it @ 60% from A.Y 08-09-A.Y 10-11 and that even AO had accepted depreciation claimed on STB @60% in A.Y 13-14, which was confirmed by the DRP also. H) That the entries in the books

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

133(6) of the Act G) That CISCO has claimed depreciation on the assets/equipment as owner, which has been allowed to it @ 60% from A.Y 08-09-A.Y 10-11 and that even AO had accepted depreciation claimed on STB @60% in A.Y 13-14, which was confirmed by the DRP also. H) That the entries in the books

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

133(6) of the Act G) That CISCO has claimed depreciation on the assets/equipment as owner, which has been allowed to it @ 60% from A.Y 08-09-A.Y 10-11 and that even AO had accepted depreciation claimed on STB @60% in A.Y 13-14, which was confirmed by the DRP also. H) That the entries in the books

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

133(6) and receiving clarification from the Executive Engineer, IPH, on perusal of which the Assessing Officer found that the contract was on Built Operate Transfer (BOT) basis and not in the nature of works contract and that the project was on turnkey basis in which the assessee was involved in operation and management also. The AO in that case

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)

133(6) and receiving clarification from the Executive Engineer, IPH, on perusal of which the Assessing Officer found that the contract was on Built Operate Transfer (BOT) basis and not in the nature of works contract and that the project was on turnkey basis in which the assessee was involved in operation and management also. The AO in that case

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

133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back 22,56,533/- 28,91,184/- Recd against sale of 80,000/- 1,02,500/- PPE Quota Cert. Disc recd. From

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

133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back 22,56,533/- 28,91,184/- Recd against sale of 80,000/- 1,02,500/- PPE Quota Cert. Disc recd. From

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

133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back 22,56,533/- 28,91,184/- Recd against sale of 80,000/- 1,02,500/- PPE Quota Cert. Disc recd. From

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

133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back 22,56,533/- 28,91,184/- Recd against sale of 80,000/- 1,02,500/- PPE Quota Cert. Disc recd. From

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

133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back 22,56,533/- 28,91,184/- Recd against sale of 80,000/- 1,02,500/- PPE Quota Cert. Disc recd. From

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

133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back 22,56,533/- 28,91,184/- Recd against sale of 80,000/- 1,02,500/- PPE Quota Cert. Disc recd. From

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

133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back 22,56,533/- 28,91,184/- Recd against sale of 80,000/- 1,02,500/- PPE Quota Cert. Disc recd. From

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

133/- 7,827/- Customers Rent received from 99,761/- 83,134/- employees Cash discount received 4,83,159/- 6,19,048/- from cotton suppliers Brokerage recd against 2,34,587/- 3,00,564/- export invoices Duty Draw Back 22,56,533/- 28,91,184/- Recd against sale of 80,000/- 1,02,500/- PPE Quota Cert. Disc recd. From

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR 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)

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 15.03.2021 for furnish the relevant documents/information on or before 18.03.2021, but no information/documents was filed by the assessee in response to abovementioned letters. 5. Findings of the AO: Since the genuineness of the excess claim amounting to Rs.10,91,16,920/- for deduction u/s 80IC

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

133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender / creditor for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 79,50,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. 16.14 Moreover, if only the assessee was not able

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)

133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. Neither enquiry was made by CIT(A) / AO before confirming