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 rate of 60 % should not be allowed to assessee. 5. Further various submissions made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings are analyzed as under: • However, first of all it is observed that the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of CISCO System(India) Pvt. Limited is related to the Audit Video Conferencing devices and depreciation

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)

42,75,000/- Assessed Income: Rs. 74,29,889/- Less BF Losses: A.Y. Amount of brought Amount of dep. Set Balance carried forward unabsorbed off against the forward to the next depreciation current year income year 2012-13 25199906 7429889 17770017 2013-14 7027382 0 7027382 Total 32227288 7429889 24797399 Losses to be carried forward

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 on the assets whose value has already been shown as written off. 8. While upholding the addition made by the AO, the ld. CIT(A) held, following the CIT(A)’s order for the earlier years, that in those years, the ld. CIT(A) had upheld a part of the assessee's submission, to the extent that the excess

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:

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:

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

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

UMESH KUMAR,MANDI vs. ITO, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

section 144. The resultant additions were challenged in appeal before the ITA 657/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Page 2 of 5 CIT(A) against the part relief granted by the CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the facts of the present case submitted that the assessee at the relevant point of time

DUSHYANT,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dushyant Vs. The Ito S/O Sh. Viptu Ram R/O Vpo Sunder Nagar Tata Pani Distt, Mandi Distt- Mandi, H.P. Pan No. Apfpd0262D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Inder Mohan Revenue By : Shri Manjit Singh

section 49 (1) the of the income tax act. The Assessee was also required to address the year of acquisition of the property and support its claim of carrying out improvements on the said property. In the absence of a proper explanation the assessing officer considering the total cost of acquisition and improvement

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

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.

42,946/- under section 36(1)(va) on account of late deposit of employees contribution to PF/ESI despite the fact that the same was duly paid before filing of Income Tax Return. Further, an addition of Rs. 7,03,125/- was made under section 43B on account of 2.2 bonus payable which was also duly paid by the assessee before

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

42, 2015) Supreme court has held that once the assessee has proved ownership of assets and income generated from use of those assets is treated as business income, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

42, 2015) Supreme court has held that once the assessee has proved ownership of assets and income generated from use of those assets is treated as business income, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

42, 2015) Supreme court has held that once the assessee has proved ownership of assets and income generated from use of those assets is treated as business income, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

42, 2015) Supreme court has held that once the assessee has proved ownership of assets and income generated from use of those assets is treated as business income, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MPHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

42, 2015) Supreme court has held that once the assessee has proved ownership of assets and income generated from use of those assets is treated as business income, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

42, 2015) Supreme court has held that once the assessee has proved ownership of assets and income generated from use of those assets is treated as business income, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

42, 2015) Supreme court has held that once the assessee has proved ownership of assets and income generated from use of those assets is treated as business income, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section

ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI vs. QUARKCITY INDIA PVT. LTD., MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

42, 2015) Supreme court has held that once the assessee has proved ownership of assets and income generated from use of those assets is treated as business income, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section