M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, 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

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)

46,50,196) and Depreciation as Income Tax Act has been Reduced at Rs. 13,68,80,557 (Power Division (Eligible Unit)- 43,16,890 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)-13,25,63,667). In addition, we are enclosing copy of Depreciation Chart as per Companies Act, 2013 of Power Division (Eligible Unit) and Other Division (Non-Eligible Units

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)

46,50,196) and Depreciation as Income Tax Act has been Reduced at Rs. 13,68,80,557 (Power Division (Eligible Unit)- 43,16,890 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)-13,25,63,667). In addition, we are enclosing copy of Depreciation Chart as per Companies Act, 2013 of Power Division (Eligible Unit) and Other Division (Non-Eligible Units

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

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)

46,504/- were common staff welfare expenses and hence were charged to P & L Account. The list of general staff welfare expenses is as per Annexure -V (Refer Page No. 15). The supporting documents along with allocating sheet were produced before the AO. The AO didn't take into consideration such material on record. The copy of allocation sheet

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)

46,504/- were common staff welfare expenses and hence were charged to P & L Account. The list of general staff welfare expenses is as per Annexure -V (Refer Page No. 15). The supporting documents along with allocating sheet were produced before the AO. The AO didn't take into consideration such material on record. The copy of allocation sheet

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)

46,504/- were common staff welfare expenses and hence were charged to P & L Account. The list of general staff welfare expenses is as per Annexure -V (Refer Page No. 15). The supporting documents along with allocating sheet were produced before the AO. The AO didn't take into consideration such material on record. The copy of allocation sheet

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)

46,504/- were common staff welfare expenses and hence were charged to P & L Account. The list of general staff welfare expenses is as per Annexure -V (Refer Page No. 15). The supporting documents along with allocating sheet were produced before the AO. The AO didn't take into consideration such material on record. The copy of allocation sheet

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)

46,504/- were common staff welfare expenses and hence were charged to P & L Account. The list of general staff welfare expenses is as per Annexure -V (Refer Page No. 15). The supporting documents along with allocating sheet were produced before the AO. The AO didn't take into consideration such material on record. The copy of allocation sheet

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)

46,504/- were common staff welfare expenses and hence were charged to P & L Account. The list of general staff welfare expenses is as per Annexure -V (Refer Page No. 15). The supporting documents along with allocating sheet were produced before the AO. The AO didn't take into consideration such material on record. The copy of allocation sheet

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)

46,504/- were common staff welfare expenses and hence were charged to P & L Account. The list of general staff welfare expenses is as per Annexure -V (Refer Page No. 15). The supporting documents along with allocating sheet were produced before the AO. The AO didn't take into consideration such material on record. The copy of allocation sheet

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)

46,504/- were common staff welfare expenses and hence were charged to P & L Account. The list of general staff welfare expenses is as per Annexure -V (Refer Page No. 15). The supporting documents along with allocating sheet were produced before the AO. The AO didn't take into consideration such material on record. The copy of allocation sheet

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)

46,504/- were common staff welfare expenses and hence were charged to P & L Account. The list of general staff welfare expenses is as per Annexure -V (Refer Page No. 15). The supporting documents along with allocating sheet were produced before the AO. The AO didn't take into consideration such material on record. The copy of allocation sheet

M/S MRS. BECTOR FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07

depreciation on capital receipt Rs. 2,46,000/- of subsidy of Rs. 16,40,0007- ii) Addition on account of capitalization of interest Rs. 9,51,133/- u/s 36(1)(iii) on amount Invested in the purchase of property 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has ignored the fact that no penalty was leviable as all the facts stood disclosed

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

SANJEEV BATISH,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation in any year. With an expansion of such a nature not only there would be increase in production but generation of more employment as well, which would benefit the local populace. It is for this reason, carrying out substantial expansion by itself is treated as ‘initial assessment year’. It would mean that even when an old unit completes substantial

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 14 A (2) are not applicable in the case here in. 3. That the Worthy CIT(A) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, erred in law and on facts in not directing the Ld Assessing Officer, not to make disallowance u/s 14A by applying rule 8D at Rs. 46,04,492/- and without assuming the proper jurisdiction. Directions

DCIT-CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. M/S SHIVOM COTSPIN LTD., SIRMOUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.560/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Shivam Cotspin Limited, The Dcit, Circle, बनाम Village Kheri, Parwanoo Kala Amb, Trilokpur Road, Sirmour Himachal Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aajs9111L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section-80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee had Plant & Machinery worth Rs.31,14,03,477/- (after taking depreciation) on ITA Nos.560 & 957-c-2019 & 46