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

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant 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

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)

3) of the Act and not from the end of the financial year from passing of the subsequent reassessment order under section 147 of the Act. 25. In this regard, useful guidance can be drawn from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007] 162 Taxman 465. The issue which arose

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3, NEW DELHI VERSUS DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. COURT [2017] 398 ITR 8 DELHI HIGH wherein it has been held that – “In the context of the present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the Assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation on assets like land and building, it was incumbent upon the PCIT to undertake an inquiry as regards

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)

3 of our reply to TPO provides with the calculation of taxable profit in power division amounting to Rs. 23,94,34,249/- in which Depreciation as per Companies Act has been added back and reduced by Depreciation calculated as Income Tax Act from Book Profit calculated in the Profit and Loss of Power Division. " Moreover, as per section

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)

3 of our reply to TPO provides with the calculation of taxable profit in power division amounting to Rs. 23,94,34,249/- in which Depreciation as per Companies Act has been added back and reduced by Depreciation calculated as Income Tax Act from Book Profit calculated in the Profit and Loss of Power Division. " Moreover, as per section

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

3) of the Income Tax Act but took a contrary stand in these years. He submitted that as per the proviso to Section 11(2), the period of the stay is required to be excluded from the alleged ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 18 period of five years, therefore, assessee is protected by the proviso appended with

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

3) of the Income Tax Act but took a contrary stand in these years. He submitted that as per the proviso to Section 11(2), the period of the stay is required to be excluded from the alleged ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 18 period of five years, therefore, assessee is protected by the proviso appended with

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”.

Depreciation on building under construction as 3,21,88,727/- discussed above 3 Addition on account donations as discussed above Rs. 46,000/- 4 Addition on account of conveyance allowance as Rs. 10,06,000/- discussed above. 5 Total assessed income. Rs. 6,99,19,146/- Order under section

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”.

Depreciation on building under construction as 3,21,88,727/- discussed above 3 Addition on account donations as discussed above Rs. 46,000/- 4 Addition on account of conveyance allowance as Rs. 10,06,000/- discussed above. 5 Total assessed income. Rs. 6,99,19,146/- Order under section

M/S HEADMASTER SALOON PVT.LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on page 3 para 6 has observed as follows: “ 6. On perusal of the above reply, it was seen that the assessee had not declared the voluntary disclosure / surrender of income that was made by him during the course of survey operation.” 16. During the course of the assessment proceedings

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 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. The Ld. AO in the assessment order dt. 26/12/2016 has stated that return declaring income of profit of business is of Rs. 31,54,889/- filed on 29/11/2014 and same is set off against depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

3) for A. Ys.2011-12 to\n2014-15.\nIn this regard, it is pertinent to mention here the provisions of Section 147 which\nreads as under:\n\"If the assessing office has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax\nhas escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the\nprovisions of Section 148 to 153, assessee

M/S APEX BUILDERS, LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-2(1), LUDHIANA

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 40A(3) of the Act. The total amount of such purchases aggregated to Rs . 16,33,037/-. No satisfactory explanation for seeking the deduction and falling under the exception mentioned in Rule 6DD was provided by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 16,33,037/-. 4.3 Additionally, the AO observed another

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)

3)The deduction referred to in sub-section(1) shall be- (1) in the case of any undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub-clauses (1) and (iii) of clause (a) or sub-clauses(1) and (ill) of clause (b) of, sub-section (2), one hundred per cent of such profits and galns for ten assessment years commencing with

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)

3) read with Section 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

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act.\n3.2 The AO computed the total assessed income at Rs.10,92,96,818/-, making\nthe following key additions:\nΟ\nSurplus taxed as AOP (Denial of Exemption): Rs.10,20,01,948/-\nDisallowance of Interest (on advances to specified persons): Rs.\n10,61,466/-\nΟ\nDisallowance of Salary to Specified Persons: Rs.21

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 153A of the Act is without jurisdiction. 5. That the additions made in the assessment Order are not based on any corroborative and relevant incriminating material stated to have been unearthed during the course of any search by the Assessing Officer, though no search has taken place on the appellant and therefore, the Order of Assessment is wholly illegal