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

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1964 were provided in the Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, ITR and also before the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 7. That the detail, bifurcation and evidence of all expenses attributable to the exempted and non-exempted units were provided/submitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer and Assessing Officer during

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1964 were provided in the Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, ITR and also before the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 7. That the detail, bifurcation and evidence of all expenses attributable to the exempted and non-exempted units were provided/submitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer and Assessing Officer during

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses without correctly appreciating the nature, quantum and reasonableness of the legitimate business expenditure incurred by the State Government undertaking in discharging its statutory and legitimate liabilities

M/S MSJ BATH FITTINGS & ACCESSORIES PVT. LTD.,MANIMAJRA vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal, With The Permission Of The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh.” 3. The Above Grounds Are General In Nature & Needs No Adjudication.

section 250(6) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 83/14-15 dated 07.03.2017 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 4. That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Income

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Ludhiana, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”). The impugned order has sustained the findings of Ld. AO whose assessment order under section 143(3) is dt. 26/12/2016. Factual Matrix 2. The Assessee is a corporate entity under the Companies Act, 1956/2013. The relevant Assessment Year

SHIVA SPECIALITY YARNS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Depreciation to be carried forward 45873644 Current Losses Ignored as Return is Not Filed On Time According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, it has other income which is Rs.12,57,590/-. It has profit on sale of fixed assets etc. On the strength of this letter reproduced above, it was submitted that the software of the Revenue

HIM TEKNOFORGE LTD.,BADDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, , PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 06/CHD/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Him Teknoforge Ltd. बनाम The ITO Billanwali, Baddi, Solan Parwanoo (H.P) Himachal Pradesh-173205 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:AAACG8584G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vineet Krishan, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/01/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/01

depreciation as on 01.04.2016 was at Rs 7,42,70,568/-. It is further submitted that Ld. Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo as per order under section 250

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as the same has been passed ignoring the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016, which overrides the provisions of the other laws for the time being in force

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD( AS LEGAL SUCCESSOR OF GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD),GURGAON vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is patently erroneous and bad in law. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal No. CIT A 1.1 Chandigarh-2/10008/2013-14 (Manual Appeal Register No. 440/12-13) filed by the appellant against the appeal effect order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the assessing officer under section

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Revenue is time barred by 05 days for which Revenue has filed a condonation of delay application. 3. Delay of 05 days is condoned for which Revenue has shown sufficient cause

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/-. The appellant could have furnished revised return once it has discovered the above omission /wrong statement as per the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act. Accordingly no merit is found in such ground of appeal taken by the appellant. The same is hereby dismissed. “ That

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT.LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections filed by

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 315 & 316/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Acit, M/S Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., बनाम Circle-2(1), Plot No.17, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh is against law and facts on the file in as such as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in not allowing lease rental on set top boxes amounting

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT.LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections filed by

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 315 & 316/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Acit, M/S Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., बनाम Circle-2(1), Plot No.17, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Chandigarh is against law and facts on the file in as such as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in not allowing lease rental on set top boxes amounting

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)

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section