SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. In the context of the present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. In the context of the present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. In the context of the present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. In the context of the present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. In the context of the present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR 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 in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken." 9. The circular makes it clear that section 80IC of the Act was inserted to give effect to the new package announced by the Union Cabinet. The circular further clarifies that this section provides for deduction for a period

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

depreciation on forging press after being satisfied with explanation of assesse which was supported by documents, Commissioner was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263

BHAGWATI STEEL PROCESSORS,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for\nthe assessment year 2021-22.\n2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:\n1. That the order of the Learned PCIT is bad, against the facts and law.\n2. That the details and explanation of Turnover, Unabsorbed Depreciation

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)

section 263(1) of the Act. This is because the order has been passed without making proper and requisite inquiries or verifications which should have been made, thus making the assessment order passed not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of revenue interalia, in the matter of differential rates and amounts of 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)

section 263(1) of the Act. This is because the order has been passed without making proper and requisite inquiries or verifications which should have been made, thus making the assessment order passed not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of revenue interalia, in the matter of differential rates and amounts of depreciation

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)

263 stage is not permissible. 3.5 The AR argued that the so-called discrepancy arose on account of “profit on sale of 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

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

depreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers. Though the return of income in respect of the "Lease Equalisation Fund" was not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263

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)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law in as much as the date of order as per the impugned order is 19.03.2020 and which has been signed without mentioning of a DIN. As per the separate order, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has mentioned

M/S SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 263 of CIT (A), Patiala before the Tribunal. 21. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. We find that the present appeal arise out of the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r/w 263 dated 24/07/14. In the revision order so passed by the ld CIT, Patiala, as we have

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)

263 and Section 144B of the Act, the original assessment order dated 21.12.2017, which forms the genesis of the present dispute has now become ITA 870/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 12 null and void and as such, the appeal of the assessee may also be treated as null and void and be dismissed as such. 12. On the other hand

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

263 in the 14. present case is that the Assessing Officer had not examined the claim of the assessee to deduction under section 80IA(4) vis-a-vis Explanation 13 to the said section which excludes profits earned from works contracts from deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. 15. On this account we are unable to agree with

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

263 in the present case is that the Assessing Officer had not examined the claim of the assessee to deduction under section 80IA(4) vis-a-vis Explanation 13 to the said section which excludes profits earned from works contracts from deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. 15. On this account we are unable to agree with

NOOR RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KULLU vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciation was wrongly allowed by the A.O. Now we have to consider as to whether the view taken by the A.O. was a possible view in accordance with law or not. The powers of the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263