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

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 4,58,73,644/- Rs.23,85,13,392/- The Return of Income was filed on 02.02.2019 and being filed after due date under section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. the returned loss was to be ignored and not carried forward in view of the Provisions of Sec.80 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (Chapter VI - Aggregation

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)

9. As far as the addition on account of GDR receipt under section 68 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has given his reasoning and findings in para 8.1 to 8.29 in the impugned order and held that the addition under section 68 on account of share capital and share premium through issuance of GDR is not sustainable

M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

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)

9, they invoked clause (c) of Explanation-2 to Section 147 of the Act as deemed escapement of income which is not the case of the assessee. He argued that assessee's case is fully covered by the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, which has been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Foramer France

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

9 of submission dated 06.06.2024 filed by DR). 27. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished all information as sought for by the assessing officer. The aforesaid fact finds strength from the fact that the assessing officer has, in the original assessment order dated 30.11.2017, duly recorded in para 4 that "on perusal of the final accounts

VIMAL ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, PATIALA, PUNJAB

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

9. Notwithstanding the above facts, the reopening is otherwise bad in law on account of followings: Non-Disclosure of any failure on the part of assessee 7 a) Firstly it submitted that the reopening in the case of the assessee is wrong in the facts since the Ld. AO has failed to disclose the facts of original assessment proceedings while

SUDARSHAN JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, AMBALA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

139 or in response to notice issued under section 142(1) or section 148; or (b) to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that purpose. In case where the assessment has been made u/s 143(3) and action u/s 147 is sought to be taken after expiry of four years from end of relevant

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT-CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

139 which is depreciation chart on 31-03-2017 annexed to Balance Sheet tallies with Annexure 'A' attached with the Written Submissions. 3. The complete details of factory building and shop taken on rent have also given in Annexure 'B'. Your goodself will find that there are two factory, buildings and one shop taken on rent. The rent agreement