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

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

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

148 (SC). 2. It has come to the notice of the Board that the new Accounting Standard on ‘Leases’ issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India require capitalization of the asset by the lessees in financial lease transaction. By itself, the accounting standard will have no implication on the allowance of depreciation on assets under the provisions

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

148 (SC). 2. It has come to the notice of the Board that the new Accounting Standard on ‘Leases’ issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India require capitalization of the asset by the lessees in financial lease transaction. By itself, the accounting standard will have no implication on the allowance of depreciation on assets under the provisions

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

148 (SC). 2. It has come to the notice of the Board that the new Accounting Standard on ‘Leases’ issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India require capitalization of the asset by the lessees in financial lease transaction. By itself, the accounting standard will have no implication on the allowance of depreciation on assets under the provisions

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

KATIANI EDUCATION SOCIETY,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

Section 148 of the Act is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding that the assessee society is not eligible to claim exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as it was not existing solely for educational purpose which is contrary to the facts on record and as such

KATIANI EDUCATION SOCIETY,KULLU vs. DCIT, MANDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

Section 148 of the Act is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding that the assessee society is not eligible to claim exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as it was not existing solely for educational purpose which is contrary to the facts on record and as such

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negi

148 of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,76,00,000/-after making addition of Rs. 2,84,51,943/-on account of amount accumulated as per provisions of section 11(5) of the Act, Rs. 2,35,00,000/- on account of bogus purchases and depreciation

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