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

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148

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

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148

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)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

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

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

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

148 to 153, assessee or reassess such income and also any\nother income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which\ncomes to his notice subsequently in course of the proceedings under this section,\nor recomputed the loss or the depreciation

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)

section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Allowance/Rate of (Rate of depreciation/ATMs) - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 - Assessee

ANISH GARG,PATIALA vs. ITO WARD-4, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148 of the Act.\n5.4 Referring to the aforesaid, the Id AR submitted that there is not even a\nsingle document for A.Y. 2012-13 which has been impounded during the course\nof survey and the same is evident from the assessment records wherein there is\nno documents available on record which is pertaining to the impugned\n assessment year

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

148 of the Act. The AO accordingly brought to tax the Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of the plot and super structure situated in Mohal Sankat Mochan (Old Mohal Badai) Tehsil, Shimla amounting to Rs. 2,36,10,000/- and after allowing transfer expenses of Rs. 27,00,000/- and index cost including CLU expenses and after allowing

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

148. 2. That he was not justified to enhance the addition to Rs. 8,13,85,737/- as against Rs. 2,08,60,900/- made by the assessing officer and up hold the same by resort to the provisions of section 69C. 3. That he further gravely erred in making an addition of Rs. 16,27,714/- representing

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

148 by playing two innings as there are two separate independent assessment orders one dt. 12/06/2020 under section 9 143 (3) and another under section 147/148 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act. In addition to this the assessee firm has gone through further rigours of proceedings under section 263. The Ld. AR further contended that

SUDARSHAN JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, AMBALA

The appeal stand allowed

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

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 no. (i) and either

INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. RAJESH KHANNA, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

148 and therefore it is requested to drop the proceedings and grant relief to assessee. If your Honor still intend to reopen the assessment, kindly provide copy of materials requested as per Para 1 above. Thanking You, Yours sincerely For Rajesh Khanna 16.3 The AO, ignoring the assessee's aforesaid letter, passed order (APB 21-30) dated 30.03.2022 under Section

RAJESH KHANNA,NEELKANTH PLYWOOD, YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

148 and therefore it is requested to drop the proceedings and grant relief to assessee. If your Honor still intend to reopen the assessment, kindly provide copy of materials requested as per Para 1 above. Thanking You, Yours sincerely For Rajesh Khanna 16.3 The AO, ignoring the assessee's aforesaid letter, passed order (APB 21-30) dated 30.03.2022 under Section

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)

148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18.” 15. Further, our reference was drawn to factual and legal submissions in connection with eligibility of 100% deduction under section 80-IC of the Act so made by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings and the contents of which read as under: “Sub: Notice under sub-section

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs.5,62,672/- without any justification. 11. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 2.1 The following additional Grounds have also been taken by the Assessee: 1. That the approval u/s 153D was granted by the JCIT without application of mind

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs.5,62,672/- without any justification. 11. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 2.1 The following additional Grounds have also been taken by the Assessee: 1. That the approval u/s 153D was granted by the JCIT without application of mind

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

depreciation of car without any discussion in the Appellate Order. 11. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. ITA 738/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 3 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds : 1. That the approval u/s 153D was granted by the JCIT without application