DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

44,37,684/-) and M/s Vijay Trading Company (Rs.65,94,005/-). In\naddition, the AO also treated the GDR receipt of Rs.6,45,00,000/-being share\ncapital and Rs.38,30,88,075/- being security premium totaling to Rs.\n44,75,88,075/- as income from undisclosed sources and which was brought to\ntax by invoking the provisions of Section

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:

section 32(1) solely on the basis of 'Completion Notice Certificate' dated 30.09.2015, which itself contains the requirement of satisfaction of the other conditions yet to be fulfilled for proceeding to be completed in accordance with clause 8 of Indian Transfer Agreement. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in allowing depreciation

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

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)

44,75,88,075/- as income from undisclosed sources and which was brought to tax by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. The AO further did not allow the set off of the income so assessed against the brought forward losses/ unabsorbed depreciation

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

Section 11. Thus, this addition is not sustainable and accordingly deleted. ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 26 Ground No.2 in A.Y. 2015-16 20. In this ground, grievance of the assessee is that CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.2,44

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

Section 11. Thus, this addition is not sustainable and accordingly deleted. ITA Nos. 797 & 798/CHD/2024 A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16 26 Ground No.2 in A.Y. 2015-16 20. In this ground, grievance of the assessee is that CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.2,44

THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATIALA vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

Sections 28 to 44 of the Income Tax Act-1961 at Rs. 6,99,19,150/-. The depreciation on building

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. THE SIKH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATIALA

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

Sections 28 to 44 of the Income Tax Act-1961 at Rs. 6,99,19,150/-. The depreciation on building

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 under the Act has been computed. [Para 5] In the instant case, after the service of the notice under section 148, the assessee had filed its objections for reopening the assessment to the effect that in the light of the binding decision of High Court and the decision of the Tribunal there

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

44,84,484/- u/s 35(1)(i) of the Act. The AO, vide notice dated 03.02.2021, issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, asked the assessee to furnish the details of the expenditure claimed; as to whether the expenditure had been made for in-house research, or paid to some outside agencies; that if the research was an in-house

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)

44 of separate set, wherein the appeal of the assessee have been allowed on this technical ground only and the Assessment Order as passed by the AO has been quashed. The facts in the above said case are similar to the facts in the case of the assessee, therefore, the judgments above need to be followed in the case

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Depreciation. A.Y. 2012-13 Page 8 of 18 5. CIT Vs Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd (172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359)where Hon'ble Delhi Supreme Court held that amendment made in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty per cent. of such\nincome and no deduction shall be allowed under any other clause of this\nsection.\"\n21. The Assessing Officer in I. T. A. No. 132 of 2018 where the assessee had\nreceived Rs.11,30,561 as interest income, held that the interest payment\nreceived on compensation/enhanced compensation

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation)\nRs.6,35,92,364/-\nNet surplus as per Income & Expenditure account\nRs.2,64,44,805/-\nDisallowance of payment made to Global Educational\nConsultants\nRs.1,37,80,000/-\nDisallowance of payment made to Shubhdeep Consultants\nowance of personal vehicle expenses\nRs.2,57,67,8001-\nTaxable Income\nRs.11,21,084/-\nRs.6,71,13,689/-\nITA No.52/CHD/2023

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation was claimed in excess has not been undertaken by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. 12. Mr. Asheesh Jain then volunteered that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax had exercised the second option available to him under section 263(1) of the Act by sending the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. That option

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation was claimed in excess has not been undertaken by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. 12. Mr. Asheesh Jain then volunteered that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax had exercised the second option available to him under section 263(1) of the Act by sending the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. That option

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation was claimed in excess has not been undertaken by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. 12. Mr. Asheesh Jain then volunteered that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax had exercised the second option available to him under section 263(1) of the Act by sending the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. That option