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 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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since the facts as well the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, these have been heard together and are being disposed of with this common order: 2. ITA No 547/Chd/2017 for AY-2013-14 is taken as the lead case

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since the facts as well the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, these have been heard together and are being disposed of with this common order: 2. ITA No 547/Chd/2017 for AY-2013-14 is taken as the lead case

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since the facts as well the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, these have been heard together and are being disposed of with this common order: 2. ITA No 547/Chd/2017 for AY-2013-14 is taken as the lead case

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

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)

6. That all the details related to depreciation as per Companies Act, 2013 and 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

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)

6. That all the details related to depreciation as per Companies Act, 2013 and 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

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 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

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”.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereinafter referred to as the “ impugned order”. The assessee was in first appeal before 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”. Factual Matrix Return declaring

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”.

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereinafter referred to as the “ impugned order”. The assessee was in first appeal before 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”. Factual Matrix Return declaring

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

250/- and agricultural income of Rs. 20,27,700/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for Manual (compulsory) Scrutiny on the basis of parameter at Para 1(ii) of the Manual Compulsory Guidelines of CBDT issued vide Instruction No. 4/2016 dt. 13/07/2016 and notice under Section 143(2) issued on 27.09.2016 and a requisition under Section

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

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2015-16

depreciation on ATM. 3. It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing officer restored. 2. The Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the assessment order and the authorized representative of the assessee on the other hand relied upon the impugned order. 3. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the issues addressed

ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MICRO TURNERS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

250(6) of the Income Tax At, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. The sole issue in the present appeal relates to allowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act @ 100% of profits from the eligible business of the assessee on account of substantial expansion undertaken, after availing 100% deduction of the profits for the first five

ACIT, C-3(1), CHANDIGARH vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR BATRA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A).

250(6) of the Income Tax At, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee had claimed 100% deduction of the profits of his eligible undertaking u/s 80IC of the Act for five years, beginning from assessment year 2006-07. Thereafter the assessee had made expansion in financial year

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

250 of the Act. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee fled a return of income of Rs. 10,61,330/- electronically on 23/09/2013. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 07/01/2014. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The statutory