BANGA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI vs. ITO, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 69. The assessee submitted that the balance amount had been paid from its own funds through identifiable bank transactions and that all payments were duly recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee placed reliance on audited financial statements, bank statements, depreciation

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 on the said amount @ 5% of Rs. 14,00,000/- amounting to Rs. 70,000/- was disallowed under section 32 r.w.s 43(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said findings of the AO. 5. Against the said findings and the direction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. GPG CATTLE FEED PVT. LTD., MOGA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of\nthe assessee is dismissed

69, 69A, 69B and 69C as the\ncase may be.\"\nThe Hon'ble Bench further relied upon the Judgment of Khurana Mills Pvt. Ltd. of\nChandigarh Bench and finally held in para 10 as under:-\n“10. In the case of Sant Steel & Alloys (supra) the Hon'ble Tribunal found\non factual basis that the amount received by the assessee

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)

69 taxmann.com 170[SC] viii) Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed by the assessee. Commissioner was well within his powers under Section 263 to direct fresh assessment Virbhadra singh (HUF) vs PCIT [2017] 80 ;uinann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh). 6. In view of the discussion above at this time

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)

69 taxmann.com 170[SC] viii) Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed by the assessee. Commissioner was well within his powers under Section 263 to direct fresh assessment Virbhadra singh (HUF) vs PCIT [2017] 80 ;uinann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh). 6. In view of the discussion above at this time

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)

69,800.00 3,53,79,715.00 16,67,90,085.00 10,52,97,615.00 The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee company was incorporated on 21.11.2012. He in this respect observed that till the time the operation of hotel business of the assessee company commenced, there has been no source of income or availability of own generated funds with

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)

69,800.00 3,53,79,715.00 16,67,90,085.00 10,52,97,615.00 The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee company was incorporated on 21.11.2012. He in this respect observed that till the time the operation of hotel business of the assessee company commenced, there has been no source of income or availability of own generated funds with

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)

69,800.00 3,53,79,715.00 16,67,90,085.00 10,52,97,615.00 The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee company was incorporated on 21.11.2012. He in this respect observed that till the time the operation of hotel business of the assessee company commenced, there has been no source of income or availability of own generated funds with

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)

69,258/- was added back. 31. The ld. CIT(A) observed, while confirming the AO’s order that with the insertion of sub-section (6) to Section 11 of the Act, no depreciation

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

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 under

NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1554/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Nahar Industrial Enterprises The Acit, Circle-7, बनाम Limited, Focal Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Ludhiana Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana Tan No: Aaccn3563A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 115JB of the Act inter alia making addition of Rs. 60,86,81,068/- on account of repurchase of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB). The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee partly allowed the appeal and held that out of Rs. 60.83 crore an amount

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

69,540/-. 2. Perusal of records reveals that assessee had sold immovable property comprising of land measuring 1-14 Bighas in Khata No. 30 Khatouni No. 52 & Khasra No. 1528/1463/704/1/2/1 situated in New Mohal Sankat Mochan (Old Mohal Badai) Tehsil, Shimla (R). District Shimla for consideration of Rs. 2,36,10,000/- on 17/03/2011. The assessee had declared / computed

M/S SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO.,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

depreciation, interest and salary to the partners after due verification. Further, he directed to treat the surrendered income at Rs. 60,00,000/- as against Rs. 65,00,000/- considered by the AO under section 69

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

depreciation claim of Rs. 12,15,02,719/- was disallowed. The AO also found a difference in stock during the survey, where 1373 bales of cotton were not properly recorded in the books of accounts, and since the assessee failed to provide satisfactory proof of their purchase, the same were treated as unaccounted investment and added under section 69

M/S PUNJAB TISSUE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal, With The Permission Of The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Taking Note

section 250(6) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 10270/16-17 dated 15.11.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh gravelly erred in upholding the action of the ld. Assessing Officer who had made

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.

69,68,581/- 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

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

69,484 6 Chenab Construction AAEFC6518M 53,38,599 7 Continental Construction AAEFC6570F 37,27,490 8 Continental Conrete Piles AAFFC0609Q 1,14,17,563 9 Deepak construction AAFFD3140B 2,91,63,157 Malwa Construction & 10 Engineer AAMFM0282A 70,57,336 National Engineer & 11 Contractor AAFFN8932K 1,78,26,814 12 Om Construction & Engineer AABFO2739D 40,46,479 13 Pragati

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)

69 were not considered by the AO and no specific disposal to the various objections as raised by the assessee have been disposed off by way of speaking order which is completely bad in law on the basis of judgement of Bombay HighcourtM/s. Browntape Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT in Writ petition No. 627 of 2022 wherein assessee order passed

SH. JASPREET SINGH MAUJ,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jainand Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

69 of the Income Tax Act, chargeable to tax @ 60% u/s 115 BBE of the Act, had been upheld, depreciation could not be allowed to be claimed, and that as per the provisions of Section