M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MOHALI vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10

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

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AVON CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Circle-5, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R & C.O.No.6/Chd/2016 In M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs. The A.C.I.T., G.T. Road, Circle-5, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R (Appellant) (Respondent)

207,79,63,134/- Total 208,69,27,554/- Income of the year 4132.84 Lakhs Add Depreciation 1242.43 Lakhs Total 5375.27 Lakhs 8. Referring to the same the Ld. counsel for assessee stated that the assessee had own funds available to the extent of Rs.53.75 crores which was more than the sufficient for making the investment in land during

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

depreciable assets” of Rs.24.22 lakhs which was adjusted in block of assets u/s 50. The computation of income clearly reflected this treatment and the AO had accepted the same. The PCIT overlooked section 50 which mandates such treatment. 3.6 The AR emphasized that this was a specific CASS issue. The AO called for details, perused the tax audit report, financials

KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 43(1) as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Saharanpur Electric Supply Co Ltd (194 ITR 294) and the assessee had. Submitted that amounts received in F.Ys. 2005-06, 2008-09 and 2009-10 of Rs. 11.25 lacs, Rs. 25 lacs and Rs. 25 lacs respectively were reduced from the assets while claiming

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Appeal of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 43(1) as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Saharanpur Electric Supply Co Ltd (194 ITR 294) and the assessee had. Submitted that amounts received in F.Ys. 2005-06, 2008-09 and 2009-10 of Rs. 11.25 lacs, Rs. 25 lacs and Rs. 25 lacs respectively were reduced from the assets while claiming

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

depreciation not relating to trading activities of the assessee's business for calculating indirect cost of trading exports while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The A.O. noted that for computing deduction u/s 80HHC the assessee considered costs which were claimed to be directly relatable to trading goods as direct cost of trading goods

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

207,06,67,668 6010.91 III. It is submitted that sale realization of guar gum in the instant year is as under: Period Amount Sr. Weight (in Average Rate No. qtls) i) 69165.15 105,05,70,605 15189.31 Pre survey upto 17.11.2014 ii) 40397.30 43,10,88,226 10671.21 Post survey (18.11.2014 to 31.03.2015) Total

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

In the result, appeal is dismissed

depreciation relating to the same,\nwhich has not been challenged by the Revenue before us.11 is clearly evident\nthat on receiving information from the Commercial Tax Department, the Id. AO\ndid not even care to verify the same from his records from where al I these\nfactual inaccuracies would have been brought out. There was clearly total non-\napplication

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid direction

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

207/- made by the AO on account of unexplained capital employed? 16. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting addition of Rs.1,96,56,449/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act? 17. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid\ndirection

207/- made by the AO on account of unexplained\ncapital employed?\n16. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in\ndeleting addition of Rs.1,96,56,449/- made by the AO on account of\ndisallowance of deduction u/s 801A of the Act?\n17. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DSG PAPERS PVT. LTD., PATIALA

In the result, respective appeals are disposed off in light of aforesaid direction

207/- made by the AO on account of unexplained capital employed?\n\n16. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting addition of Rs.1,96,56,449/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 801A of the Act?\n\n17. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case