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

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation ….” 19. A perusal of the above provisions

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, 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

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation ….” 19. A perusal of the above provisions

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

36 ITRep 454 (Chd) manufacturing unit who does the job work involving the same processes for others. Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

36 ITRep 454 (Chd) manufacturing unit who does the job work involving the same processes for others. Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

36 ITRep 454 (Chd) manufacturing unit who does the job work involving the same processes for others. Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

36 ITRep 454 (Chd) manufacturing unit who does the job work involving the same processes for others. Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

36 ITRep 454 (Chd) manufacturing unit who does the job work involving the same processes for others. Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

36 ITRep 454 (Chd) manufacturing unit who does the job work involving the same processes for others. Section-80 IB-assessee is at liberty to do Affirmed in( 2009) 183 Taxman 38 (P&H) manufacturing for itself or for others, which makes no difference for purpose of deduction u/s 80-IB. Allowable on job work. In view of above submissions

ACIT, PATIALA vs. M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

depreciation. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue, therefore, stands dismissed. 33. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is as under:\ “3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A), Patiala is legally correct in adjudicating that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the case of the assessee

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,PATIALA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

depreciation. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue, therefore, stands dismissed. 33. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is as under:\ “3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A), Patiala is legally correct in adjudicating that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the case of the assessee

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

SH. DHARAM PAL AGGARWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation, telephone and travelling expenses on account of estimated personal use thereof. 3. Vide ground no. 1 the grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 13,77,730/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 36

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AVON CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Circle-5, G.T. Road, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R & C.O.No.6/Chd/2016 In M/S Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs. The A.C.I.T., G.T. Road, Circle-5, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aabca4140R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on account of the same was warranted having been decided in the preceding years itself in favour of the assessee. As for the investment made in the impugned year amounting to Rs.1.21 crores, the Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that it had enough own funds for making the said investment. Our attention

M/S KAPSONS FASHION PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1014 To 1016/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

section 36(1)(iii) being the amount of interest paid on bank loan taken A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2013-14 for acquiring of assets not put to use in the year under reference.” 53. The above ground relates to disallowance of an amount of 7,23,299/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act being the amount of interest paid

VIMAL ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, PATIALA, PUNJAB

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

36(1)(viia), Tribunal rightly held that reopening assessment initiated beyond four years was bad in law - Whether SLP filed by revenue against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee] [2015] 59 taxmann.com 391 (Punjab & Haryana) HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA State Bank of Patiala v. Commissioner of Income-tax* 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)

depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1964 were provided in the Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, ITR and also before the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 7. That the detail, bifurcation and evidence of all expenses attributable to the exempted and non-exempted units were provided/submitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer and Assessing Officer during

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)

depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1964 were provided in the Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, ITR and also before the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 7. That the detail, bifurcation and evidence of all expenses attributable to the exempted and non-exempted units were provided/submitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer and Assessing Officer during

M/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENET CORPORATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ao)

36:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh under section 250 (6) is not a speaking order. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 1, Chandigarh has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,61,462/ of administrative expenses