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)

142/- at Point No. 27 of the said Form and also states the Book Profit derived by the undertaking from the Eligible business at Rs. 19,17,26,089 at point no. 29 along with the same Taxable Profit for which deduction is allowable under section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also stated

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)

142/- at Point No. 27 of the said Form and also states the Book Profit derived by the undertaking from the Eligible business at Rs. 19,17,26,089 at point no. 29 along with the same Taxable Profit for which deduction is allowable under section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also stated

BANGA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI vs. ITO, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation chart, loan documents, and ledger accounts. It was pointed out that the AO made the addition on mere presumption and failed to appreciate that all requisite details had already been submitted, both during the assessment and appellate proceedings. 6. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the form

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

depreciation and as against the returned income of Rs.\n21,05,09,769/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs.44,75,88,075/- under\nthe normal provision and income under section 115JB at Rs.12,83,97,342/-.\n7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.\nCIT(A) wherein the order so passed

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

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

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)

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken." 9. The circular makes it clear that section 80IC of the Act was inserted to give effect to the new package announced by the Union Cabinet. The circular further clarifies that this section provides for deduction for a period

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)

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year.” c) It is submitted that, in the case of the assessee there is no such information relating to failure and nothing has been mentioned about the original assessment proceedings have been discussed by the AO in the reasons

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)

142(1) of the Act has been reproduced, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that “…………But while filing the Income Tax Return, the Section under which exemption was claimed as inadvertently been written as “Section 10(23C)(iiiab) instead of 10(23C)(vi)”. 21. It remains undisputed, as cannot be disputed, that since the assessee stands approved under the provisions

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

142], or (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of [such income, or] [(d) has concealed the particulars of the fringe benefits or furnished inaccurate particulars of such fringe benefits. he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,— (ii) in the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition

SUDARSHAN JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, AMBALA

The appeal stand allowed

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

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 assessment year, it is necessary that condition

TARSEM BHARTI,SHIMLA vs. ITO, WARD-2, SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation as so made in the return of income. Notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) followed by show

M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

142(1) were issued and necessary information were called for. Thereafter, a show cause under section 144 was issued due to non compliance of statutory notices and absence of replies to the questionnaire issued from time to time and thereafter, the AO invoked his jurisdiction under section 144 and assessment was completed under section 144 dt. 09/03/2015 wherein the assessed

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

142(1) were issued and necessary information were called for. Thereafter, a show cause under section 144 was issued due to non compliance of statutory notices and absence of replies to the questionnaire issued from time to time and thereafter, the AO invoked his jurisdiction under section 144 and assessment was completed under section 144 dt. 09/03/2015 wherein the assessed

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

142(1) were issued to the assessee on 21.08.2017. The assessment proceedings, conducted under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were attended by his authorized representative, Sh. R.K. Kaushal, CA, who provided the relevant details. 3.1 The assessee, a builder and property developer, earned income from house property and salary as a sitting MLA from HP Vidhan

NOOR RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KULLU vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 09/08/2016, in compliance thereto the assessee furnished the requisite replies and documents. However the Ld. Pr. CIT exercised his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act and considered the assessment order passed by the A.O. as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the reasons

BHAGWATI STEEL PROCESSORS,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, specifically calling for\ncomprehensive details including, inter alia, turnover reconciliation, GST returns, job\nwork income, depreciation

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

142(1) was issued on 05.02.2014. The assessee was represented by its authorized representative, Chartered Accountant Mr. Pankaj Garg, who attended the proceedings and furnished the required details and books of account for verification. 4.1 The AO observed that the assessee had paid interest amounting to Rs.20,079/- to Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and Rs.2,04,226/- to HDB Financial