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

15%, whereas, the contention of the counsel for the assessee is that STBs were classifiable under the head "Computers including Computer Software" as provided under Item-Ill (5) of the table of rates of depreciation in Appendix 1 to the Income- tax Rules, 1962 and were eligible for depreciation @ 60%. The Ld. Counsel to demonstrate that

DCIT, C-,1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB MEDICAL FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Cir.1(Exemption) M/S.Punjab Medical Foundation Chandigarh. Vs. Charitable Trust 63-64, Waryam Nagar Cool Road, Jalandhar Pan : Aaatp 5171 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Sudhir Sehal, Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok K. Khana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

15) of the Income Tax Act. After hearing the assessee, the ld.AO has denied charitable status and consequently did not grant benefit under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The basic reasons assigned by the AO are – (i) the assessee is running a shop, which is not an integral part for running of the hospital. This pharmacy is being

M/S SUPERFINE KNITTERS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Superfine Knitters Ltd., Vs. The Acit, 269, Industrial Area-A, Circle-7, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. Aadcs4217P

15% has been charged at Tubewell which was allowable @ 10%. This has resulted into excess depreciation of Rs. 86,885/- (260656-173771). Thus, excess claim of depreciation has resulted into under assessment of income by Rs. 2,51,885/- with tax effect of Rs. 85,616/- plus interest u/s 234B of Rs. 28,253/-, total tax effect

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

15) and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act.\n3.2 The AO computed the total assessed income at Rs.10,92,96,818/-, making\nthe following key additions:\nΟ\nSurplus taxed as AOP (Denial of Exemption): Rs.10,20,01,948/-\nDisallowance of Interest (on advances to specified persons

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

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

15,718.00 4174.79 4289.92 5 It is submitted that following findings of learned Assessing Officer is also incorrect and, misconceived: "in respect of Guwar Churi which is purchased as well as sold by the assessee, against more than 100% increase in purchase rate post survey (from Rs. 1080/-pre survey to Rs. 2215/- post survey), there has been only

M/S DEEPAK ELECTRONICS,SOLAN vs. ITO, WARD, SOLAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 80IC of the Act at Rs. 15,21,957/- instead of R. 22,39,739/- claimed by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: Asstt. Has been completed U/s 143(3) at returned income. Thereafter, Ld. A.O ahs observed that assessee has not paid any interest

RMC SERVICES,MANIMAJRA vs. ITO, W-3(4), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 835/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Rmc Services, The Ito, Ward 3(4), बनाम Sco 855, 1St Floor, Nac, Chandigarh Manimajra, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajfr6827P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c) is also not warranted due to the fact that nothing has been concealed and the additions was only due/to the difference of opinion between Ld. A.O. and the assessee. Nothing was concealed to avoid any tax, so we pray that the very initiation of this penalty proceeding be order to be dropped. 5. The appellant craves

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

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT.LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections filed by

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 315 & 316/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Acit, M/S Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., बनाम Circle-2(1), Plot No.17, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh

15 ITA No. 315 & 316-c-2020 for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. Nos 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 – M/s Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd, Chandigarh of appeal of the Revenue. Cross objection Nos. 1/Chd/2021:- The assessee has challenged the findings of the ld. CIT(A) by filing Cross Objection on the following grounds: “That order

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT.LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections filed by

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 315 & 316/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Acit, M/S Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., बनाम Circle-2(1), Plot No.17, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh

15 ITA No. 315 & 316-c-2020 for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 & C.O. Nos 1 & 2-C-2021 AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 – M/s Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd, Chandigarh of appeal of the Revenue. Cross objection Nos. 1/Chd/2021:- The assessee has challenged the findings of the ld. CIT(A) by filing Cross Objection on the following grounds: “That order

M/S MSJ BATH FITTINGS & ACCESSORIES PVT. LTD.,MANIMAJRA vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal, With The Permission Of The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh.” 3. The Above Grounds Are General In Nature & Needs No Adjudication.

15. Ground No. 5 is against the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs. 1,57,71,549/- on investment of Rs. 8,01,10,668/- claimed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The fact relating to the issue is that the assessee did not file any claim in respect of additional depreciation on investment