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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

9 to 10 of the ‘Common Paper' wherein only\napproval granted to the Assessing Officer is of ‘Cenvat Credit' by the\nPCIT. Thus, in the present case, since the approval as granted u/s 151 is\nin variance with the reasons as recorded by the AO, therefore, it was\nstressed before us that the notice u/s 148 deserved to be quashed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

9 to 10 of the ‘Common Paper' wherein only\napproval granted to the Assessing Officer is of ‘Cenvat Credit' by the\nPCIT. Thus, in the present case, since the approval as granted u/s 151 is\nin variance with the reasons as recorded by the AO, therefore, it was\nstressed before us that the notice u/s 148 deserved to be quashed

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

depreciation during the year under consideration. During the assessment proceedings the assessee has not produced any bills/vouchers/ proof of payment/ copy of accounts of the building as Capital Work in Progress to substantiate the claim of source of investment made for the construction of building. The onus to prove the sources of the surrender income lies entirely on the assessee

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

9 to 10 of the ‘Common Paper' wherein only\napproval granted to the Assessing Officer is of ‘Cenvat Credit' by the\nPCIT. Thus, in the present case, since the approval as granted u/s 151 is\nin variance with the reasons as recorded by the AO, therefore, it was\nstressed before us that the notice u/s 148 deserved to be quashed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

9 to 10 of the ‘Common Paper' wherein only\napproval granted to the Assessing Officer is of ‘Cenvat Credit' by the\nPCIT. Thus, in the present case, since the approval as granted u/s 151 is\nin variance with the reasons as recorded by the AO, therefore, it was\nstressed before us that the notice u/s 148 deserved to be quashed

M/S NOVA IRON AND STEEL LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Filing Of Income Tax Return.

139(5) of the Act. Accordingly no merit is found in such ground of appeal taken by the appellant. The same is hereby dismissed. “ That the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has not given any finding on issue of 4. addition of amount of Rs. 7,03,125/- deposited on account of bonus payable despite the fact that

NAHAR POLY FILMS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 458/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Nahar Poly Films Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम 375, Industrial Area-A, Circle-1, Ludhiana 141003 Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacn5708K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Navdeep Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

9 There is clear cut opportunity cost of these invested funds measurable in proportionate interest payment. Opportunity cost of the invested funds is not myth /concept /fiction rather it is a real business cost. Assessing Officer's action is therefore upheld. Appellant's appeal is therefore dismissed.” During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee 14. submitted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

9. From the copy of the reasons as reproduced above, it has been\nmentioned by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not filed his return\nof income for Asstt. Year 2011-12 in paragraph-1 and then in paragraph 6, it\nhas again been reiterated that since the assessee did not file any return a\nincome for Asstt. Year

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”.

9,64,03,619/- which means the assessee has accumulated Rs. 2,09,29,154/- in excess of 15% of its gross receipts which is liable to be taxed as the assessee has not given any notice to the concerned Assessing Officer in form No. 10 before the expiry of time allowed under section 139(1) in respect

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”.

9,64,03,619/- which means the assessee has accumulated Rs. 2,09,29,154/- in excess of 15% of its gross receipts which is liable to be taxed as the assessee has not given any notice to the concerned Assessing Officer in form No. 10 before the expiry of time allowed under section 139(1) in respect

VIRGO ALUMINUM LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. PR. C.I.T., CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 438/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

depreciation if form 3AA was not filed along with the return of income but same was filed during the assessment proceedings before final order of assessment was made. 1. Allowability of deduction u/s 80-IB if the Form 10CCB has not been field along with the return of income but before the final order of assessment was made. Since both

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

139(4) of the Income Tax\nAct declaring ‘nil' income.\n5.1 The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny\nassessment and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1)\nwere issued and served upon the assessee.\n5.2 The 1d. AO has analyzed the activities of the assessee\nand found that assessee has extended the undue benefit to\ntwo individuals