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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80 IA placed at paper book page No. 29 to 35. The relevant queries raised in the questionnaire are as follows:” “5. As per information filed by you, it has seen that you had undertaken contract for providing lift water supply scheme from Executive Engineer, IPH and claimed this income as exempt u/s 80IA and got sub-contract from

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 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Assessee had filed return of income on 29/11/2014 showing an income of Rs. 31,54,889/- as income from business which was set off against brought forward unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 2012-13. 6. The assessee the corporate body is into the business of growing, collection, processing and distribution

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)

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

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)

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

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)

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

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)

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

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)

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

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)

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

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)

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

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)

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

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)

section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The depreciation claimed against work in progress is not claimed by the appellant. As the items on which depreciation was claimed are part of finished building, being used or are ready to be used by the appellant, there is no basis for a summary disallowance of 50% by the assessing officer

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Depreciation disallowed and excess of income 2,82,41,720 over expenditure Total Taxable Income 10,47,74,451 5. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in assessment year 2014-15 and ten grounds of appeal in assessment year 2015-16. In brief, its grievance revolves around the additions noticed by us in the above table and rest