SURINDER KUMAR,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Itat Shall Not Be Filed In Cases Where The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed The Monetary Limit Of Rs. 20 Lacs. The Tax Will Not Include Any Interest Thereon. It Is Further Clarified That If In The Case Of An Assessee, Disputed Issues Arise In More Than One Assessment Year, Appeal Can Be Filed In Respect Of Such Assessment Year Or Years In Which The Tax Effect In Respect Of Disputed Issues Exceeds The Monetary Limit So Specified.

depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,900/- on computer printers may be allowable @ 60% instead of @10% as confirmed by Hon’ble CIT(A). vii) That addition amounting to Rs. 54,536/- on account of purchase of foreign currency has also wrongly been disallowed by learned A.O. and CIT(A). viii) That commission of Rs. 9.74 lacs has also been wrongly

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

46A since the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not submitting the same to the Ld. AO and reference was drawn to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram reported at 357 ITR 133 in which it has been held that additional evidence even if, it is submitted before the High

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

46A since the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not submitting the same to the Ld. AO and reference was drawn to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram reported at 357 ITR 133 in which it has been held that additional evidence even if, it is submitted before the High

KHANNA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED 2000-1A, SUKHDEV NAGAR FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

46A since the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not submitting the same to the Ld. AO and reference was drawn to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram reported at 357 ITR 133 in which it has been held that additional evidence even if, it is submitted before the High

SHRI SUBHASH CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Same Are Heard & Disposed Off. 6. It Is Prayed That The Addition Shall Kindly Be Deleted.

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

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

depreciation may kindly be deleted.\nGROUND:2\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A)\nhas erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in denying\nbenefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act and assessing the trust as AOP and making\nan addition of Rs. Rs.10

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Depreciation As per I.T. Tax 2082820 6546393 5. It is submitted that the assessee has led complete evidence to support each and every items of the aforesaid revised profit and loss account and revised computation of income which shows a loss of Rs.65,46,393/-. It is submitted that if there is a loss of Rs.65,46,393/- which

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Depreciation on Telephone, Car insurance and Interest on Car Loan made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana is illegal, unwarranted, uncalled for and needs to be deleted. 4. That the appellant craves to leave or to amend the Ground of appeals before or at the time of hearing. Record

M/S K.LALL OVERSEAS,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The ld. counsel, in this respect has invited our attention to page 34 of the Paper Book which is copy of the balance sheet to submit that assessee had enough funds i.e. partner’s capital of Rs. 6.2 Crores, whereas the investment in land, building and machinery was less than Rs. 2 Crores

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S K LAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The ld. counsel, in this respect has invited our attention to page 34 of the Paper Book which is copy of the balance sheet to submit that assessee had enough funds i.e. partner’s capital of Rs. 6.2 Crores, whereas the investment in land, building and machinery was less than Rs. 2 Crores

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,NABHA vs. DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to purchase of vaccine amounting to Rs. 19,12,91,000 made from GlaxoSmithKIine Biological S.A. ('GSK, Bio'}, Belgium, allegedly holding that the appellant -as failed to deduct tax at source from such payment. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allegedly holding that