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 on assets under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. 3. The contents of this Circular may be brought to the notice of all concerned. [F.No. 225/86/2000/ITA-II—From Central Board of Direct Taxes]” SOURCE : (2001) 165 CTR (St) 25 23. Moreover, a perusal of the said AS-19 reveals that the same in fact talks of a loan agreement

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 on assets under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. 3. The contents of this Circular may be brought to the notice of all concerned. [F.No. 225/86/2000/ITA-II—From Central Board of Direct Taxes]” SOURCE : (2001) 165 CTR (St) 25 23. Moreover, a perusal of the said AS-19 reveals that the same in fact talks of a loan agreement

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 on assets under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. 3. The contents of this Circular may be brought to the notice of all concerned. [F.No. 225/86/2000/ITA-II—From Central Board of Direct Taxes]” SOURCE : (2001) 165 CTR (St) 25 23. Moreover, a perusal of the said AS-19 reveals that the same in fact talks of a loan agreement

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER PVT. LTD., NABHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 121/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, M/S Glaxosmithkline Circle 1(1), बनाम Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Patiala Road, Vs. Nabha. Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcg8415R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

depreciation should have been given @ 50% instead of 100%. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee filed a written submission and argued on the line of the written submissions. His submissions are reproduced as under: 6 121-Chd-2023 M/s Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd, Nabha “SUBMISSIONS Re (I): Slump sale does not fall within the definition of succession

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

depreciation current year income year 2012-13 25199906 7429889 17770017 2013-14 7027382 0 7027382 Total 32227288 7429889 24797399 Losses to be carried forward Rs. 2,47,97,399/-. Assessed. Issue requisite documents. Charge Interest u/s 234A/B/C, if any. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 25

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

VARDHMAN ACRYLICS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2011-12

25 company under the Companies Act, therefore, section 14 A could not be 481-482-517 & 743-Chd/-2016- Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Ludhiana 5 applied. The Ld. Assessing officer, however, was not satisfied with the above contention of the assessee. He observed that since the assessee had used mixed funds for investment, hence, the provisions of section 14A read with

VARDHMAN ACRYLICS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2011-12

25 company under the Companies Act, therefore, section 14 A could not be 481-482-517 & 743-Chd/-2016- Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Ludhiana 5 applied. The Ld. Assessing officer, however, was not satisfied with the above contention of the assessee. He observed that since the assessee had used mixed funds for investment, hence, the provisions of section 14A read with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2011-12

25 company under the Companies Act, therefore, section 14 A could not be 481-482-517 & 743-Chd/-2016- Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Ludhiana 5 applied. The Ld. Assessing officer, however, was not satisfied with the above contention of the assessee. He observed that since the assessee had used mixed funds for investment, hence, the provisions of section 14A read with

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2011-12

25 company under the Companies Act, therefore, section 14 A could not be 481-482-517 & 743-Chd/-2016- Vardhman Acrylics Ltd., Ludhiana 5 applied. The Ld. Assessing officer, however, was not satisfied with the above contention of the assessee. He observed that since the assessee had used mixed funds for investment, hence, the provisions of section 14A read with

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

25. At this stage it requires to be noted that since the original assessment was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Act, and not Section 143 (3) of the Act, the proviso to Section 147 will not apply. In other words, even though the reopening in the present case was after the expiry of four years from

DR. APURVA GOSWAMY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Bench: This Bench Is To Contest The Confirmation Of Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.1,17,82,620/- Out Of The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer. This Ground Reads As Under:

depreciation on the amount utilized on temporary part of the structures. 24. The other ground of the appeal which reads as under is to challenge the addition of Rs.4,25,046 on account of disallowance under section

DR. APURVA GOSWAMY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Bench: This Bench Is To Contest The Confirmation Of Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.1,17,82,620/- Out Of The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer. This Ground Reads As Under:

depreciation on the amount utilized on temporary part of the structures. 24. The other ground of the appeal which reads as under is to challenge the addition of Rs.4,25,046 on account of disallowance under section

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

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

DUSHYANT,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dushyant Vs. The Ito S/O Sh. Viptu Ram R/O Vpo Sunder Nagar Tata Pani Distt, Mandi Distt- Mandi, H.P. Pan No. Apfpd0262D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Inder Mohan Revenue By : Shri Manjit Singh

depreciated accordingly. The assessee in her application before the LAO had submitted that she was running a guest house in the said property and was earning income thereon. Even the LAO awarded compensation to the assessee of Rs.11,25,000/- for loss of Business income. All these facts,which have not been controverted by the assessee lead only

UMESH KUMAR,MANDI vs. ITO, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

depreciated accordingly. The assessee in her application before the LAO had submitted that she was running a guest house in the said property and was earning income thereon. Even the LAO awarded compensation to the assessee of Rs.11,25,000/- for loss of Business income. All these facts,which have not been controverted by the assessee lead only

SHRI SUBHASH CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Same Are Heard & Disposed Off. 6. It Is Prayed That The Addition Shall Kindly Be Deleted.

25%. 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the view taken by the A.O. 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that now the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT, Shimla Vs. M/s Aarham Softronics

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