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 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

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

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)

153(3) of the Act. 12. That being aggrieved by the impugned order under section 263 the assessee firm is before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 : 1. That the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Chandigarh has wrongly and hurriedly passed order under section 263 of Income Tax Act without making

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)

153(3) of the Act” 10. Here, it is noted that while the initial show-cause was issued by the ld PCIT in respect of excess claim of deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv) in respect of power unit and matter relating to allocation of common expenses among exempted (power unit) and not-exempted units, in his findings

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)

153(3) of the Act” 10. Here, it is noted that while the initial show-cause was issued by the ld PCIT in respect of excess claim of deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv) in respect of power unit and matter relating to allocation of common expenses among exempted (power unit) and not-exempted units, in his findings

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

3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to\n2014-15.\nIn this regard, it is pertinent to mention here the provisions of Section 147 which\nreads as under:\n\"If the assessing office has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax\nhas escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the\nprovisions of Section 148 to 153, assessee

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

153 Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (AY 6,27,75,303 2010-11) Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 15,17,461 Course Disallowance of Donation 1,10,000 Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year

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

153 Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (AY 6,27,75,303 2010-11) Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 15,17,461 Course Disallowance of Donation 1,10,000 Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year

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 to 153\nreferred relevant\nyear).\nto\nas the\nassessment\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

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 to 153\nreferred relevant\nyear).\nas the assessment\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year,\nhe may, subject to the provisions\nof sections

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 to 153\nreferred to as the\nrelevant assessment\nyear).\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

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 to 153\nreferred to as the\nrelevant\nyear).\nassessment\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

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)

3) The deduction referred to in sub-section(1) shall be- (i) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of clause (a) or sub-clauses(i) and (iii) of clause (b) of, sub-section (2), one hundred per cent of such profits and gains for ten assessment years commencing with

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. SHRI KARAJ SINGH, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 Shri Karaj Singh बनाम/ Cr Building Sector 17 H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti Vs. Chandigarh 160017 Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. Co. No. 16/Chandi/2024 [In Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Karaj Singh Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti, Cr Building Sector 17 Vs. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (Cross-Objector) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment

153-D of the Act. 5. That the approval u/s 153D granted by the Ld. Additional CIT is null, void ab initio and without jurisdiction as the same is in violation of CBDT Circular No 189/2019 requiring DIN therefore order of assessment dated 23.06.2021 u/s 153A of the Act read with section 143(3) of the Act read with Section

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)

depreciation on the said amount @ 5% of Rs. 14,00,000/- amounting to Rs. 70,000/- was disallowed under section 32 r.w.s 43(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said findings of the AO. 5. Against the said findings and the direction

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

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 because

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation and taxes is at Rs. 174.93 crores. Thus even the internal accruals is much more than the amount considered by the Ld. AO for calculating this disallowance. 7. The free funds available with the assessee company as on 31/3/2013 at Rs. 456.47 crores & Rs. 553.57 crores as on 31/3/2014. 8. The Ld. A.O. has not established any nexus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation and taxes is at Rs. 174.93 crores. Thus even the internal accruals is much more than the amount considered by the Ld. AO for calculating this disallowance. 7. The free funds available with the assessee company as on 31/3/2013 at Rs. 456.47 crores & Rs. 553.57 crores as on 31/3/2014. 8. The Ld. A.O. has not established any nexus