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

14,843/- on the leased assets, thus resulting in an addition of Rs.42,69,02,140/-. He rejected the alternate contention of the assessee that the STB would fall within the definition and scope of computers, hence, depreciation on the same should be granted @ 60% as provided under I.T. Rules, 1962. The AO also found that the assessee had claimed

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

14,843/- on the leased assets, thus resulting in an addition of Rs.42,69,02,140/-. He rejected the alternate contention of the assessee that the STB would fall within the definition and scope of computers, hence, depreciation on the same should be granted @ 60% as provided under I.T. Rules, 1962. The AO also found that the assessee had claimed

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

14,843/- on the leased assets, thus resulting in an addition of Rs.42,69,02,140/-. He rejected the alternate contention of the assessee that the STB would fall within the definition and scope of computers, hence, depreciation on the same should be granted @ 60% as provided under I.T. Rules, 1962. The AO also found that the assessee had claimed

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

14,66,75,246 (Power Division (Eligible Unit)-5,20,25,050 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)- 9,46,50,196) and Depreciation as Income Tax Act has been Reduced at Rs. 13,68,80,557 (Power Division (Eligible Unit)- 43,16,890 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)-13,25,63,667). In addition, we are enclosing copy of Depreciation

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB 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)

14,66,75,246 (Power Division (Eligible Unit)-5,20,25,050 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)- 9,46,50,196) and Depreciation as Income Tax Act has been Reduced at Rs. 13,68,80,557 (Power Division (Eligible Unit)- 43,16,890 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)-13,25,63,667). In addition, we are enclosing copy of Depreciation

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

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.:

14 “During assessment proceedings further additional depreciation of Rs. 20,48,585/- was also claimed on the machinery installed and put to use in the preceding year which was used for less than 180 days and accordingly additional depreciation for the said preceding year was restricted to 50% of the normal additional depreciation as per provision of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

section\n28 or section 41 or section 59;\n53[(va) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiia) of section 28 ;]\n54[(vb) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiib) of section 28 ;]\n55[(vc) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiic) of section 28 ;]\n56[(vd)] the value of any benefit or perquisite taxable

SH. PARGAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, KAITHAL

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

section 1048 [or by an electoral trust]].\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause, \"trust\" includes any other\nlegal obligation ;)\n(iii) the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under clauses (2)\nand (3) of section 17;\n42[(iiia) any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-\nclause (iii), specifically granted

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

BABA HIRA SINGH BHATTAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,LEHRAGAGA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

14. Having considered the rival contentions in this respect, we are at one with the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee. It is not at all in dispute and rather it is a matter of record that the fact that the original assessment in this case was proceeded consciously with reference to the provisions of Sections

SHIVOM COTSPIN LIMITED,KALA AMB vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section-80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee had Plant & Machinery worth Rs.31,14,03,477/- (after taking depreciation

DCIT-CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. M/S SHIVOM COTSPIN LTD., SIRMOUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section-80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee had Plant & Machinery worth Rs.31,14,03,477/- (after taking depreciation

DCIT-CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. M/S SHIVOM COTSPIN LTD., SIRMOUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section-80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee had Plant & Machinery worth Rs.31,14,03,477/- (after taking depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. SHIVOM COTSPIN LIMITED, SIRMOUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section-80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee had Plant & Machinery worth Rs.31,14,03,477/- (after taking depreciation

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MARSHAL MACHINES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

section 14, whereas in the instant case the surrender made by the assessee on account of stock, construction of factory, discrepancy in trade creditors can be said to be from the earnings of the business as the assessee, a company has been proved to be in no other activity except in the business of Electronics as declared before the Revenue