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

254 or section 251 which would indicate that the appellate authorities are confined to considering only the objections raised before them or allowed to be raised before them either by the assessee or by the department, as the case may be. They can consider the entire proceedings to determine the tax liability of the assessee.” 32. The Hon’ble Bombay

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., PATIALA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

depreciation allowance and thereafter assess the income in accordance with law. The Ld.CIT(A) stated that his aforesaid directions would not tantamount to setting aside the assessment order and referring the case back to the A.O. for making fresh A.Y.2001-02 assessment which had been omitted from section 251(1)(a) of the Act giving the powers

PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,PATIALA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

depreciation allowance and thereafter assess the income in accordance with law. The Ld.CIT(A) stated that his aforesaid directions would not tantamount to setting aside the assessment order and referring the case back to the A.O. for making fresh A.Y.2001-02 assessment which had been omitted from section 251(1)(a) of the Act giving the powers

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

section 254/ 143(3) of the Act erroneously holding that the appellant has opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 ('the VSV Act'). That the CIT(A) erred on facts in not appreciating that the appellant had not 1.2 opted for settlement of the aforesaid appeal under the VSV Act but had opted for settlement

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)

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

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation which is of no relevance since the entire claim of expenses has been allowed treating it as revenue in nature 21. The issue of allowability of market research expenses, accordingly, is decided in favour of the assessee. Issue No.6: The disallowance of post retirement medical benefit holding this expenditure as being in the nature of contingent liability, raised

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation which is of no relevance since the entire claim of expenses has been allowed treating it as revenue in nature 21. The issue of allowability of market research expenses, accordingly, is decided in favour of the assessee. Issue No.6: The disallowance of post retirement medical benefit holding this expenditure as being in the nature of contingent liability, raised

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,NABHA vs. DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation which is of no relevance since the entire claim of expenses has been allowed treating it as revenue in nature 21. The issue of allowability of market research expenses, accordingly, is decided in favour of the assessee. Issue No.6: The disallowance of post retirement medical benefit holding this expenditure as being in the nature of contingent liability, raised

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation which is of no relevance since the entire claim of expenses has been allowed treating it as revenue in nature 21. The issue of allowability of market research expenses, accordingly, is decided in favour of the assessee. Issue No.6: The disallowance of post retirement medical benefit holding this expenditure as being in the nature of contingent liability, raised