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

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

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

M/S HEADMASTER SALOON PVT.LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on page 3 para 6 has observed as follows: “ 6. On perusal of the above reply, it was seen that the assessee had not declared the voluntary disclosure / surrender of income that was made by him during the course of survey operation.” 16. During the course of the assessment proceedings

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. Still further, it was only and only the AO passing the order originally who could have

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

In the result, appeal is dismissed

3) on 29.12.2018. This assessment is read with\nSection 147 which has not been noted by the AO. The 1d. AO\nhas determined the taxable income of the assessee at\nRs.5,65,56,040/-.\n\n5. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee carried\nthe matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The 1d. CIT(A) has\nquashed the re-opening

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

Section 143(3) of the Act deserve to be quashed as such. 6. That the authorities below have erred in making/confirming additions without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 7. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute or revise any of the above-mentioned grounds before

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

3. books of accounts of assessee, there are cash payments of Rs.1,23,299/- on different dates like: on 11.11.2006, 15.11.2006, 20.11.2006- Rs. 20,000/-each and on 1.12.2006 Rs. 13,299/-. On the other hand in impounded Day Book these payments are made on 1.11.2006 for Rs. 1,23,299/- at one go. This is unexplained cash credit

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

3. books of accounts of assessee, there are cash payments of Rs.1,23,299/- on different dates like: on 11.11.2006, 15.11.2006, 20.11.2006- Rs. 20,000/-each and on 1.12.2006 Rs. 13,299/-. On the other hand in impounded Day Book these payments are made on 1.11.2006 for Rs. 1,23,299/- at one go. This is unexplained cash credit

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

SHRI. TARSEM 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

SH. PARSHOTAM 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

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

PRIYANKA,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

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 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 3. That the order of the Ld Assessing Officer is bad in law and facts . ITA 537/CHD/2022 A.Y.2015-16 3 5. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at the Bar that it does not wish to press Ground No.1. Rejected as not pressed. 6. Apropos Ground

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