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

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., 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

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

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

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)

42 (P&H) relied upon. It was also pleaded that even if for argument sake, it is accepted there was disclosure by the assessee in form of note to trading and profit and loss account and balance sheet, this will not take away the jurisdiction and competency of the AO to issue notice under section

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)

42,83,134 Gupta Constructions and 37 Engineers AAGFG1480L 40,00,000 Himland Construction and 38 Engineers AAEFH6688K 40,45,000 Himalayan Construction and 39 Engineers AADFH9910K 40,18,435 TOTAL 36,10,58,438 ITA 514/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 10 15. Taking into consideration all the above facts an opportunity was given to SP Singla Constructions

SH. GURINDER MAKKAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

depreciation of such building would result in double taxation. 6.9 It was submitted that as the assessee has duly paid tax on all such amount of surrender made by the assessee, therefore, making additions of the same amount to the total income of the assessee are wholly invalid as it results 'double taxation and therefore, against the principles of natural

HIM TEKNOFORGE LTD.,BADDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, , PARWANOO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 06/CHD/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Him Teknoforge Ltd. बनाम The ITO Billanwali, Baddi, Solan Parwanoo (H.P) Himachal Pradesh-173205 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:AAACG8584G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vineet Krishan, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/01/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/01

depreciation as on 01.04.2016 was at Rs 7,42,70,568/-. It is further submitted that Ld. Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo as per order under section

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)

42 is being relied upon. This, it is prayed before your goodself that the further additional technical ground taken above may please be considered and assessment may please be quashed. 9. Notwithstanding the above facts, the reopening is otherwise bad in law on account of followings: Non-Disclosure of any failure on the part of assessee 7 a) Firstly