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 and Amortization Expenses 4,54,86,758 Other Expenses 3,68,07,307 Total 11,53,61,815 Expenditure (B) Profit from COGEN Division (A-B) 25,88,20,248 (37,41,82,063-11,53,61,815) For clarification of Doubt, we are enclosing Segment-wise copies of statement of Profit & Loss Account

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 and Amortization Expenses 4,54,86,758 Other Expenses 3,68,07,307 Total 11,53,61,815 Expenditure (B) Profit from COGEN Division (A-B) 25,88,20,248 (37,41,82,063-11,53,61,815) For clarification of Doubt, we are enclosing Segment-wise copies of statement of Profit & Loss Account

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)

depreciation of the assessee for A.Y. 2014- 15, corresponding to financial year 2013-14. Definitions of certain items relevant to Income from profits and gains of business or profession: 43. In section 28 to 41

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

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negi

section 11(5) of the Act, Rs. 2,35,00,000/- on account of bogus purchases and depreciation of Rs. 1,41

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)

Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii) where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/ or relevant

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

Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest

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

Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with the manufacturing of goods, refund of excise duty has to be treated as income derived from eligible business as provided under section 80IB. 4.10 We do not find any variance

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with the manufacturing of goods, refund of excise duty has to be treated as income derived from eligible business as provided under section 80IB. 4.10 We do not find any variance

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with the manufacturing of goods, refund of excise duty has to be treated as income derived from eligible business as provided under section 80IB. 4.10 We do not find any variance

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with the manufacturing of goods, refund of excise duty has to be treated as income derived from eligible business as provided under section 80IB. 4.10 We do not find any variance

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with the manufacturing of goods, refund of excise duty has to be treated as income derived from eligible business as provided under section 80IB. 4.10 We do not find any variance

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)

Depreciation 7432860 6383927 16% Admin Exp 11420167 9805464 16% Sub Total 57244859 51110514 12% Expenses Total 90386971 83092356 9% PBT 290853 3371614 -91% 1. Sales growth at 5% has yielded only increase in absolute terms by approx Rs. 42 lacs only. Expenses growth for the year is of 9%, resulting in absolute increase by Rs. 73 lacs. Thereby leaving only

M/S NOVA IRON AND STEEL LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Filing Of Income Tax Return.

41,53,728/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dt. 25/11/2021. 2.1 The Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) Bengaluru while processing the return under section 143(1) unjustifiably made an addition of Rs. 51,42,946/- under section 36(1)(va) on account of late deposit of employees contribution to PF/ESI despite

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) of Section 143 or this Section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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)

41. The assessee had, in earlier years, entered into regular business transactions of supply of vehicles to Viking. The income resulting there from was duly offered to tax in the respective year(s). However an amount of Rs. 12,15,594/- payable by the said party did not seem recoverable and thereby the same was written off in the books

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)

depreciation claimed by you should not be disallowed as it seems that you are furnishing inaccurate particulars. Please also furnish whether you have claimed such exemption u/s 80- lA in the previous year also or not? 12. Further at para 12 of Form No.10CCB, you have shown sales tax registration No. in which it has ascertained that you were