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

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)

27 of the said Form and also states the Book Profit derived by the undertaking from the Eligible business at Rs. 19,17,26,089 at point no. 29 along with the same Taxable Profit for which deduction is allowable under section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also stated at Rs. 23,94,34,249/- at Point No. 30. Annexure

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)

27 of the said Form and also states the Book Profit derived by the undertaking from the Eligible business at Rs. 19,17,26,089 at point no. 29 along with the same Taxable Profit for which deduction is allowable under section 80-IA{4)(iv) is also stated at Rs. 23,94,34,249/- at Point No. 30. Annexure

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

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

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 on goodwill amounting to Rs. 27,30,71,379/- @100% of the prescribed rates instead of 50% as prescribed in second proviso to 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)

section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Assessee had filed return of income on 29/11/2014 showing an income of Rs. 31,54,889/- as income from business which was set off against brought forward unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 2012-13. 6. The assessee the corporate body is into the business of growing, collection, processing and distribution

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:

27,42,735/- Depreciation : 16,45,641/-(60%) Balance : 10,97,094/- which capital nature are according the software expenditure. S.No. Date Name of the Amount party 1. 18.11.2009 Orcale 10682339 Orcale S. Tax 1100281 2. 30.10.2009 Ogilvy one 553155 worldwide 3. 15.03.2010 Oglivy 917625/- 4. 19.03.2010 Infosys 2437603 5. 29.03.2010 Oglivy 368622 Total 1,60,59,625/- Total expenditure

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:

27,42,735/- Depreciation : 16,45,641/-(60%) Balance : 10,97,094/- which capital nature are according the software expenditure. S.No. Date Name of the Amount party 1. 18.11.2009 Orcale 10682339 Orcale S. Tax 1100281 2. 30.10.2009 Ogilvy one 553155 worldwide 3. 15.03.2010 Oglivy 917625/- 4. 19.03.2010 Infosys 2437603 5. 29.03.2010 Oglivy 368622 Total 1,60,59,625/- Total expenditure

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

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)

27. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO for mere verification of details without there being any evidence / material to indicate that the deduction was wrongly claimed by the assessee is without jurisdiction illegal and bad in law. Re (b) No new tangible material – Proceedings initiated on mere change of opinion 28. Though the powers under section 147/148

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)

27. It was submitted that it is established law that post 1989 amendment in section 147, as per Explanation 3 to Section 147, for the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment and such issue comes to his notice subsequently

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." 18 23. It was submitted that the circular makes it clear that section 80-IC 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

BALJIT SINGH,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. AVTAR SINGH, VILLAGE- KAIMBWALA

27\n08.2013\nManjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal in High Court

BALVINDER SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD

27\n08.2013\n•\nManjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India in High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana (2016) 65 raxmann.com 160/(2016) 237 Taxman 116 (Punjab and\nHaryana) dated 14.01.2014\n•\nSLP of Manjet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh v. Union of India dismissed by\nHon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.12.2014\n•\nPuneet Singh v. CIT. Kamal

BISHAN CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation