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

section 37 of the I.T. Act to the payer. C) That at page 80 in paragraph 5.4.4 of the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) himself has mentioned, “there is no doubt about the genuineness of the lease agreement”. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has submitted that when the CIT(A) did not have any doubt about the genuineness

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:

section 32(1) solely on the basis of 'Completion Notice Certificate' dated 30.09.2015, which itself contains the requirement of satisfaction of the other conditions yet to be fulfilled for proceeding to be completed in accordance with clause 8 of Indian Transfer Agreement. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in allowing 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

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

SHRI. TARSEM 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

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

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

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

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

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

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

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

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

depreciation on furniture and fixtures, were held to be not allowable to the assessee in view of section 115BBE(2) of the Act. In respect of the remaining expenses claimed by the assessee at Rs. 6,37,238/- (7,57,238-1,20,000), in absence of any bills/vouchers in respect of these expenses, the same were held

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA vs. SH SURENDER KUMAR PROP, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Itat Shall Not Be Filed In Cases Where The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed The Monetary Limit Of Rs. 20 Lacs. The Tax Will Not Include Any Interest Thereon. It Is Further Clarified That If In The Case Of An Assessee, Disputed Issues Arise In More Than One Assessment Year, Appeal Can Be Filed In Respect Of Such Assessment Year Or Years In Which The Tax Effect In Respect Of Disputed Issues Exceeds The Monetary Limit So Specified.

depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,900/- on computer printers may be allowable @ 60% instead of @10% as confirmed by Hon’ble CIT(A). vii) That addition amounting to Rs. 54,536/- on account of purchase of foreign currency has also wrongly been disallowed by learned A.O. and CIT(A). viii) That commission of Rs. 9.74 lacs has also been wrongly

SURINDER KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Itat Shall Not Be Filed In Cases Where The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed The Monetary Limit Of Rs. 20 Lacs. The Tax Will Not Include Any Interest Thereon. It Is Further Clarified That If In The Case Of An Assessee, Disputed Issues Arise In More Than One Assessment Year, Appeal Can Be Filed In Respect Of Such Assessment Year Or Years In Which The Tax Effect In Respect Of Disputed Issues Exceeds The Monetary Limit So Specified.

depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,900/- on computer printers may be allowable @ 60% instead of @10% as confirmed by Hon’ble CIT(A). vii) That addition amounting to Rs. 54,536/- on account of purchase of foreign currency has also wrongly been disallowed by learned A.O. and CIT(A). viii) That commission of Rs. 9.74 lacs has also been wrongly

ASHOK KUMAR CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. DCIT CIRCLE SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the learned CIT(A). It is noted that two appeals were filed—one in physical form and another electronically. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal on the ground of non-prosecution and subsequently dismissed the electronically filed appeal treating the same as infructuous, without adjudicating the issues on merits.5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

section 80C of the Income Tax Act,1961. 5. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC and Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in business activities. For the Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee filed the return of income

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

350/- v) That version of decrease in price of Guwar post survey and its impact on business of assessee does not hold merit for another reason that as tabulated hereunder: Sr. No. Assessment Year G.P. 2016-17 3.48% i) ii) 2014-15 2.98% Thus strangely there have been a loss' in the business only for a limited period from

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 .Therefore, this amount of Rs 1,23,299/- is added back to the income of the assessee being unexplained cash credit since the same are not reflected in assessee's regular books of accounts on those relevant dates.. Since the above transaction also violated the provisions of section