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

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., 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

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., 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

M/S NOVA IRON AND STEEL LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Filing Of Income Tax Return.

depreciation of Rs. 1,03,13,420/- was wrongly allowed by the CPC, Bangaluru while processing under section 143(1) whereas the correct figure was Rs. 89,96,72,937/-. An application for rectification was made under section 154

THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATIALA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

Depreciation on building under construction as 3,21,88,727/- discussed above 3 Addition on account donations as discussed above Rs. 46,000/- 4 Addition on account of conveyance allowance as Rs. 10,06,000/- discussed above. 5 Total assessed income. Rs. 6,99,19,146/- Order under section 154

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

Depreciation on building under construction as 3,21,88,727/- discussed above 3 Addition on account donations as discussed above Rs. 46,000/- 4 Addition on account of conveyance allowance as Rs. 10,06,000/- discussed above. 5 Total assessed income. Rs. 6,99,19,146/- Order under section 154

SAIURJA HYDEL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW SHIMLA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. It Is Submitted In The Application That The Impugned Order Was Passed By The Ld.

section 154 by the appellant assessee was not an appealable order as per law. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities below are not justified in holding that addition in respect of the depreciation

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

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 24 worked out to Rs. 2,64,182/-. Further, the assessee had claimed revenue expenses in the Profit & Loss account at Rs. 7,57,238/-. Out of these expenses an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-, claimed on account of depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 24 worked out to Rs. 2,64,182/-. Further, the assessee had claimed revenue expenses in the Profit & Loss account at Rs. 7,57,238/-. Out of these expenses an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-, claimed on account of depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 24 worked out to Rs. 2,64,182/-. Further, the assessee had claimed revenue expenses in the Profit & Loss account at Rs. 7,57,238/-. Out of these expenses an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-, claimed on account of depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable