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)

Section 32 of the Act and which has been claimed as an eligible deduction. Accordingly, to the reported book profits of Rs 19,17,26,089/- relating to the power division, the assessee company had added back book depreciation of Rs. 5,20,25,050/- and claim tax depreciation of Rs 43

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)

Section 43(1)do not apply in the instant case and depreciation on the said amount @ 5% of Rs. 14,00,000/- amounting

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

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. THE PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation of Rs.25,43,66,930/-. The AO was of the view that by Finance Act, 2015, sub-section (6) of Section

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

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:

depreciation at all on the assets transferred by way of slump sale inasmuch as in terms of provisions of sub-item (C) of 13 121-Chd-2023 M/s Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd, Nabha item (i) of section 43

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

NAHAR POLY FILMS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 458/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Nahar Poly Films Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम 375, Industrial Area-A, Circle-1, Ludhiana 141003 Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacn5708K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Navdeep Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 13. On this issue, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under: - “Facts of the case and appellant's submissions have been perused. The short point is that the appellant is not a debt free company. It is paying interest on / borrowed funds. If the funds

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT.LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections filed by

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 315 & 316/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Acit, M/S Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., बनाम Circle-2(1), Plot No.17, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh

43. Even otherwise, it is the own case of the Department that the STBs has a short life of three years. Referring to the clauses of the Master Lease Agreement with CISCO, as discussed above, it has been vehemently contended by the Department that the lease deed was so devised that the term of lease ends with the life

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT.LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections filed by

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 315 & 316/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Acit, M/S Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., बनाम Circle-2(1), Plot No.17, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh

43. Even otherwise, it is the own case of the Department that the STBs has a short life of three years. Referring to the clauses of the Master Lease Agreement with CISCO, as discussed above, it has been vehemently contended by the Department that the lease deed was so devised that the term of lease ends with the life

MAHAJAN CONVEYER INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. ITO-WARD,PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

43(1), having arose in Assessment year 2012-13 with invocation of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 in that year to disallow depreciation on such cost, followed by its recurring effect in succeeding five years, the Ld. CIT(A) committee grave legal error in upholding the reopening of case u/s 147 in later years, without first adjudicating the issue

MAHAJAN CONVEYER INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. ITO-WARD,PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

43(1), having arose in Assessment year 2012-13 with invocation of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 in that year to disallow depreciation on such cost, followed by its recurring effect in succeeding five years, the Ld. CIT(A) committee grave legal error in upholding the reopening of case u/s 147 in later years, without first adjudicating the issue

MAHAJAN CONVEYER INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. ITO-WARD,PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

43(1), having arose in Assessment year 2012-13 with invocation of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 in that year to disallow depreciation on such cost, followed by its recurring effect in succeeding five years, the Ld. CIT(A) committee grave legal error in upholding the reopening of case u/s 147 in later years, without first adjudicating the issue

MAHAJAN CONVEYER INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. ITO-WARD,PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

43(1), having arose in Assessment year 2012-13 with invocation of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 in that year to disallow depreciation on such cost, followed by its recurring effect in succeeding five years, the Ld. CIT(A) committee grave legal error in upholding the reopening of case u/s 147 in later years, without first adjudicating the issue

MAHAJAN CONVEYER INDUSTRIES,KANGRA vs. ITO-WARD, PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

43(1), having arose in Assessment year 2012-13 with invocation of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 in that year to disallow depreciation on such cost, followed by its recurring effect in succeeding five years, the Ld. CIT(A) committee grave legal error in upholding the reopening of case u/s 147 in later years, without first adjudicating the issue

ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation for the AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 income of the assessee was computed as nil. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee set aside the assessment order and deleted the additions. Against the said findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before this

M/S CHEEMA BOILERS LTD.,,MOHALI vs. PR. CIT-2, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 748/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 43(1) the cited decision is perhaps not applicable. vii) This also meets the requirement laid down in the decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Tamilnadu 748-Chd-2018 – M/s Cheema Boilers Limited, Mohali 8 Foodgrains Marketing Yard vs. DCIT, where it was held that subsidy or other grant given to offset the cost of an asset

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