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

154 Taxman 512, “Association of Leasing and Financial Service Companies Vs. Union of India” (2011) 2 SCC 352. Reliance was also placed on CBDT Instruction No.1978 dated 31.12.1999 laying down certain features to determine the ownership of leased asset for the purpose of allowing depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. 14. We have considered the rival contentions. The first

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

154 of the Act was not justified and the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly upheld the action of the A.O. On merit also the A.O. accepted the profit of the assessee eligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. He himself computed the profit at Rs. 15,21,957/- which was allowable as deduction under section 80IC

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

ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

Bench: The Said Date I.E. 1.6.2015. Therefore, The Mistake Was Apparent From The Record & Required To Be Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act. .

depreciation was allowed overlooking Section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under Section 154

ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

Bench: The Said Date I.E. 1.6.2015. Therefore, The Mistake Was Apparent From The Record & Required To Be Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act. .

depreciation was allowed overlooking Section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under Section 154

ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

Bench: The Said Date I.E. 1.6.2015. Therefore, The Mistake Was Apparent From The Record & Required To Be Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act. .

depreciation was allowed overlooking Section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under Section 154

ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

Bench: The Said Date I.E. 1.6.2015. Therefore, The Mistake Was Apparent From The Record & Required To Be Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act. .

depreciation was allowed overlooking Section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under Section 154

ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

Bench: The Said Date I.E. 1.6.2015. Therefore, The Mistake Was Apparent From The Record & Required To Be Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act. .

depreciation was allowed overlooking Section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under Section 154

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

section 147/148 is arbitrary and bad in law and therefore assessment\nframed consequent thereto is obviously illegal and void ab initio and liable to\nbe quashed. We accordingly set aside the order of the Id. CIT(A) and hold re-\nassessment proceedings bad in law and also directing quashing of the re-\nassessment order.\n\nFortune Metaliks Limited vs DCIT

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

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

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., 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., 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

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