M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

Section 68 on account of advances from customers, disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,34,306/- and an addition

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

Section 68 on account of advances from customers, disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,34,306/- and an addition

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

Section 68 of the Act. The AO further did not\nallow the set off of the income so assessed against the brought forward losses/\nunabsorbed depreciation

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 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

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)

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) as Annexure-F and Copy of Depreciation Chart as per Income Tax Rules for Power Division

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)

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) as Annexure-F and Copy of Depreciation Chart as per Income Tax Rules for Power Division

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

68 thereof, as had been done by the AO; and that as to whether the authorities below are not justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.1,19,03,842/-, under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 33 commission paid by the assessee at the rate

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

68 thereof, as had been done by the AO; and that as to whether the authorities below are not justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.1,19,03,842/-, under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 33 commission paid by the assessee at the rate

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs.50,231/- without discussing the same in the impugned order. 10. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs.5,62,672/- without any justification. 11. That the appellant craves

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs.50,231/- without discussing the same in the impugned order. 10. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs.5,62,672/- without any justification. 11. That the appellant craves

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

depreciation, maintenance costs, and insurance for vehicles, one of which was a Toyota Fortuner. The AO suspected that the vehicles might have been used partly for personal purposes and not entirely for business. As a result, and in line with decisions made in previous years, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.60,000 on an ad-hoc basis from

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 13. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs. 2,97,834/- without any justification. 14. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs. 9,11,4884/- without any justification. 15. That the appellant craves leave

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act on surmises and conjectures. 13. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of loss of Rs. 2,97,834/- without any justification. 14. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld disallowance of depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs. 9,11,4884/- without any justification. 15. That the appellant craves leave

SH. MOHIT MITTAL PROP. MITTAL ENTERPRISES,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions of Section II5BBE are not attracted in this case. 10. In view of the above, the action of the lower authorities in invoking provisions of Section II5BBE on the surrender income of Rs. 15 lacs is set aside and the AO is directed to compute the said surrendered A.Y.2020-21 9 income

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

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

depreciation or raise any demand in respect of payment of Tax on and before the NCLT Approval Date and the same shall stand settled at Nil value. 10. A perusal of the above prescription of the Resolution Plan shows that it provides that on making payment towards operational creditors in terms of the Plan, no Operational Creditor shall be entitled

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 amounting to Rs. 70,000/- on the building. 5. Notwithstanding, the above said grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has wrongly confirmed the order passed u/s 143(3). 6. That the Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provision of Section 68

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the Act in the case of this assessee for the period relevant to A. Yr. 2016-17 was completed on 15.12.2018 by readjusting the depreciation allowable as done in the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has accepted the said assessment order and no appeal have been filed by the assessee against the said disallowance

SUDARSHAN JEANS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, AMBALA

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

68,388/- was required to be disallowed. It was further alleged that the assessee had claimed and allowed depreciation @ 15% instead of 10% on electrical installations. The excess depreciation claim resulted into underassessment of taxable income by Rs.11,74,096/-. Accordingly, the case was reopened and hearing notices were issued u/s 142(1) from time to time. 4.3 The assessee

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the disposal of the same.

68,581/- on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 2,23,34,758/-. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even when the initiation and imposition of that penalty was totally vague