M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

sections of law which needs both judicial and accounting determination of aforesaid grants in aid of Rs. 2.50 crores vis a vis claim of depreciation of the assessee for A.Y. 2014- 15

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)

Section 32 of the Act as so laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Plastiblends India limited (supra) wherein it was held that there is no choice with the assessee to claim or not to claim depreciation and the same has to be necessary considered while computing the eligible profits for claim of deduction

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)

Section 32 of the Act as so laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Plastiblends India limited (supra) wherein it was held that there is no choice with the assessee to claim or not to claim depreciation and the same has to be necessary considered while computing the eligible profits for claim of deduction

SUDARSHAN JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, AMBALA

The appeal stand allowed

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

15% and also eligible to claim additional depreciation on such additions. However, Ld. AO rejected the aforesaid submissions and disallowed excess depreciation & additional depreciation of Rs.58.42 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. From the facts, it clearly emerges that the assessee was subjected

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

15,034/- has escaped assessment within the\nmeaning of Section 147 of the Act and another notice under section 148 was\nissued on 31/03/2018 which was served on the assessee on the said date.\n6. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed its return of\nincome on 19/04/2018 declaring total income as declared as per original

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)

15,034/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and another notice under section 148 was issued on 31/03/2018 which was served on the assessee on the said date. 6. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed its return of income on 19/04/2018 declaring total income as declared as per original

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

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)

depreciation was also dealt with accordingly. 14.3 Further, in case the AO, after passing of the order, felt it so necessary, he would have invoked the provisions of Section 154 in order to rectify, if he so felt it necessary to do so. 15

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

ACIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.742/Chandi/2009 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Acit Circle 5(1) M/S Venus Remedies Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Sco 40-41, Sector 17-A Sco 39, Sector – 26 Chandigarh – 160017 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv-6524-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca), Sh. Jaspal Sharma (Advocate)&Ms. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – By Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07 Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us Pursuant To The Directions Of Hon’Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court In Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.81-2012 Dated 25-07-2024 Wherein Following Substantial Questions Of Law Were Determined: - 1. Weather On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon’Ble Itat Was Right In Upholding The Decision Of Ld. Cit(A) Who Directed The Ao To Reallocate The Expenses On Sales Ratio & To Reduce The Addition To Rs.142.24 Lacs As Against The Addition Of Rs.7,61,96,306/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C?

15,643/-, Depreciation of Rs.1,63,04,928/-, Capital Expenditure on R&D u/s 35(2) of Rs.3,00,67,328/- and deferred revenue expenses on scientific research u/s 35(2) of Rs.1,55,36,344/- to the Baddi unit for purposes of determining deduction u/s 80IC, when the assessee had not produced separate books of accounts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 14A amounting to Rs. 72,02,609/-. The AO further noted that the newly established unit at Machiwara was still under construction during the survey and there was no reliable evidence to show that the machinery was actually used before 31.03.2018, so the entire depreciation claim of Rs. 12,15

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

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

15% because assessee has achieved the application of income derived from the Trust property to the extent of 85%, as contemplated in Section 11. Thus, this addition is not sustainable and accordingly deleted. ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 26 Ground No.2 in A.Y. 2015-16 20. In this ground, grievance of the assessee is that CIT (Appeals

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

15% because assessee has achieved the application of income derived from the Trust property to the extent of 85%, as contemplated in Section 11. Thus, this addition is not sustainable and accordingly deleted. ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 26 Ground No.2 in A.Y. 2015-16 20. In this ground, grievance of the assessee is that CIT (Appeals

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)

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 (1) of section 142 of the Income

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

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

15. In view of the above, AO is directed to consider the sum of Rs.8,10,011/- as undisclosed business income assessable under the head ‘business’ and other two sums under section 69. The business income including application of section 40(b) has to be considered accordingly. For calculation of income in view of our above observations, we restore

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer