M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, 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

depreciation rate of 60 % should not be allowed to assessee. 5. Further various submissions made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings are analyzed as under: • However, first of all it is observed that the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of CISCO System(India) Pvt. Limited is related to the Audit Video Conferencing devices and depreciation

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

depreciation rate of 60 % should not be allowed to assessee. 5. Further various submissions made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings are analyzed as under: • However, first of all it is observed that the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of CISCO System(India) Pvt. Limited is related to the Audit Video Conferencing devices and depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE BARNALA vs. LAKHVIR SINGH, GRAIN MARKET, BARNALA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

194A.\n6. It was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

SH. PARGAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD -1, KAITHAL

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

RANJEET SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, WARD 2, AMBALA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

PREETO THROUGH L/H GURMUKH SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD NO. 3, PANCHKULA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

RAJBIR SINGH,VILL. GARHI BANJARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, YAMUNANAGAR

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

BALBIR SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, SIRSA, HARYANA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

AMRINDER SINGH KHUBBER,AMBALA vs. ITO, W-5, AMBALA

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

SH. GURINDER SINGH GREWAL L/H OF PARNEET KAUR GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), CHANDIGARH

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

M/S YOGRAJ CHAUDHARY,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, YAMUNA NAGAR

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

GURDEEP SINGH HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

SAT PAL,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), , CHANDIGARH

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew

JAGPAL SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

194A.\n6.\nIt was further stated that in the original return the assessee had\ninadvertently offered the said interest amount to tax, however, upon realising\nthat the interest received was interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, being part of compensation and exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income-tax\nAct, he revised the return and withdrew