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

M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSION (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, 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)

7. Alongwith the aforesaid submissions, the assessee filed supporting documentation and details thereof are as under: “A. Depreciation chart of Power Division (Eligible Unit) as per Companies Act, 2013. B. Depreciation chart of Power Division (Eligible Unit) as per Income Tax Rules. C. Copy of Form 10CCB D. Copy of Order Passed by TPO dated 31.01.2021 E. Reply submitted

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)

7. Alongwith the aforesaid submissions, the assessee filed supporting documentation and details thereof are as under: “A. Depreciation chart of Power Division (Eligible Unit) as per Companies Act, 2013. B. Depreciation chart of Power Division (Eligible Unit) as per Income Tax Rules. C. Copy of Form 10CCB D. Copy of Order Passed by TPO dated 31.01.2021 E. Reply submitted

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

depreciation and as against the returned income of Rs.\n21,05,09,769/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs.44,75,88,075/- under\nthe normal provision and income under section 115JB at Rs.12,83,97,342/-.\n7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.\nCIT(A) wherein the order so passed

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)

7 of the IBC was filed before the NCLT/adjudicating authority. The NCLT, vide its order dated 01.04.2018 (copy placed on file), admitted the said petition. 7.2 It has been stated that subsequently, vide order dated 10.02.2021 (copy placed on file), passed by the NCLT, in furtherance of the CIRP, after complying with the statutory and procedural requirements

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)

7. The Assessing Officer held, while making the addition, that as per the provisions of Sections 11 & 12, all receipts collected from the students, in whatever form, are to be considered as income of the Trust/Society; that the funds so collected should be specifically incurred for the purpose for which it is collected and the same should be included

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)

depreciation and as against the returned income of Rs. 21,05,09,769/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs. 44,75,88,075/- under the normal provision and income under section 115JB at Rs. 12,83,97,342/-. 7

M/S MSJ BATH FITTINGS & ACCESSORIES PVT. LTD.,MANIMAJRA vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal, With The Permission Of The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh.” 3. The Above Grounds Are General In Nature & Needs No Adjudication.

7 of the Paper Book as under: “ It is submitted that the appellant did not file any claim in respect of additional depreciation on investment of Rs. 3,45,19,230/- in the return of income and has claimed it during the course of assessment proceedings. The Id. Assessing Officer had rejected the claim of the appellant

M/S MICRO TURNERS,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrisanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 445/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

7. We have gone through the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Aarham Softronics (supra) and find that the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the entire scheme of the Act relating to the relevant section i.e. section 80IC of the Act, and arrived at the conclusion that the definition of the initial assessment

M/S SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT. LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

section 32, separate rate of depreciation for building, machinery and plant, furniture and fittings etc. was provided. The definition of plant was provided u/s 43(3) which nowhere included buildings. That there was different rate of depreciation for each asset and further that for a building used for a hotel, specific provisions was made granting additional depreciation

M/S SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT. LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

section 32, separate rate of depreciation for building, machinery and plant, furniture and fittings etc. was provided. The definition of plant was provided u/s 43(3) which nowhere included buildings. That there was different rate of depreciation for each asset and further that for a building used for a hotel, specific provisions was made granting additional depreciation

M/S SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT. LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO, NAHAN

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2007-08

section 32, separate rate of depreciation for building, machinery and plant, furniture and fittings etc. was provided. The definition of plant was provided u/s 43(3) which nowhere included buildings. That there was different rate of depreciation for each asset and further that for a building used for a hotel, specific provisions was made granting additional depreciation

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2012-13: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2013-14: Ground

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2012-13: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2013-14: Ground

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2012-13: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2013-14: Ground

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS.BECTORS FOOD SPECILTIES LTD, LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2012-13: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2013-14: Ground

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MRS. BECTORS FOOD SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

7. Issue of disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work:- A.Y. 2007-08: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2010-11: Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2011-12: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2012-13: Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal A.Y. 2013-14: Ground