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)

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

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Depreciation As per I.T. Tax 2082820 6546393 5. It is submitted that the assessee has led complete evidence to support each and every items of the aforesaid revised profit and loss account and revised computation of income which shows a loss of Rs.65,46,393/-. It is submitted that if there is a loss of Rs.65,46,393/- which

SHIVA SPECIALITY YARNS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

depreciation. The AO was of the view that business loss of Rs.19,26,39,748/- is not allowable to the assessee because the return under Section 139(1) was not filed within the time limit provided in Section 139(3

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

139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt in FY 2010-11 was of Rs. 4,86,07,564/- which increased to Rs. 6,05,17,786/- during the FY2011-12. Thus there was an increase in receipts of Rs. 1,19,10,222/- which was an increase of 24.5% over

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

139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt in FY 2010-11 was of Rs. 4,86,07,564/- which increased to Rs. 6,05,17,786/- during the FY2011-12. Thus there was an increase in receipts of Rs. 1,19,10,222/- which was an increase of 24.5% over

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

139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt in FY 2010-11 was of Rs. 4,86,07,564/- which increased to Rs. 6,05,17,786/- during the FY2011-12. Thus there was an increase in receipts of Rs. 1,19,10,222/- which was an increase of 24.5% over

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

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

139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt in FY 2010-11 was of Rs. 4,86,07,564/- which increased to Rs. 6,05,17,786/- during the FY2011-12. Thus there was an increase in receipts of Rs. 1,19,10,222/- which was an increase of 24.5% over

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

139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt in FY 2010-11 was of Rs. 4,86,07,564/- which increased to Rs. 6,05,17,786/- during the FY2011-12. Thus there was an increase in receipts of Rs. 1,19,10,222/- which was an increase of 24.5% over

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

139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt in FY 2010-11 was of Rs. 4,86,07,564/- which increased to Rs. 6,05,17,786/- during the FY2011-12. Thus there was an increase in receipts of Rs. 1,19,10,222/- which was an increase of 24.5% over

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

139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt in FY 2010-11 was of Rs. 4,86,07,564/- which increased to Rs. 6,05,17,786/- during the FY2011-12. Thus there was an increase in receipts of Rs. 1,19,10,222/- which was an increase of 24.5% over

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

139/- which was an increase of25.54% over the previous year. In respect of Panchkula School the receipt in FY 2010-11 was of Rs. 4,86,07,564/- which increased to Rs. 6,05,17,786/- during the FY2011-12. Thus there was an increase in receipts of Rs. 1,19,10,222/- which was an increase of 24.5% over

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 139(1) in respect of any income accumulated or set apart in excess of 15% of the gross receipts of the assessee earned during the year under consideration. Keeping in view the facts stated above, the taxable income of the society is computed as under :- 1 Income as per Income and Expenditure account of the 3

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 139(1) in respect of any income accumulated or set apart in excess of 15% of the gross receipts of the assessee earned during the year under consideration. Keeping in view the facts stated above, the taxable income of the society is computed as under :- 1 Income as per Income and Expenditure account of the 3

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

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. 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