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

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 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation

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.

section 32(i)(iia). 20. This Ground of appeal of the assesse is therefore allowed for statistical purposes.” Copy of the order was also placed before us. The Ld. counsel for assessee, therefore, contended that the assessee having made claim for additional depreciation before the A.O. and the same being allowable as per the order of the I.T.A.T

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

section 57.\nThe said provision reads thus:\n\"57. Deductions.-The income chargeable under the head 'Income from other\nsources' shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :.\n(iv) in the case of income of the nature referred to in clause (viii) of sub-\nsection (2) of section 56, a deduction of a sum equal to fifty

SHIVA SPECIALITY YARNS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that in this current year, assessee has loss of Rs.23,85,13,392/-and out of that a sum of Rs.4,58,73,644/- represent the unabsorbed depreciation

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

73,107/- for the financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. That perusal of the return of income would show that the assessee had offered a sum of Rs. 1,05,19,500/- as income from business on account of statement made in the course of survey under section 133A of the Act. It is thus submitted

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

73,603/- 5,00,166/- 12,52,444/- share Residential 1998 & 1999 8,12,952/- 2,43,885/- 7,02,657/- 17,59,494/- 1/6th share Total 13,91,627/- 4,17,488/- 12,02,823/- 30,11,938/- 4.1 Taking note from the detail that one of the buildings acquired was a residential building on which Long Term Capital

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

73,603/- 5,00,166/- 12,52,444/- share Residential 1998 & 1999 8,12,952/- 2,43,885/- 7,02,657/- 17,59,494/- 1/6th share Total 13,91,627/- 4,17,488/- 12,02,823/- 30,11,938/- 4.1 Taking note from the detail that one of the buildings acquired was a residential building on which Long Term Capital

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

section 80HHC (3) on DEPB receipts. 5. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts while reducing profits of Arisht Spinning Mills, Unit - 1 eligible for deduction u/s 80IB by following amounts: - Particulars Amount(in Rs.) Rent received from employees 89,323/- DEPB Benefit 72,00,370/- 98,73,971/- Revenue has raised the following grounds

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

section 80HHC (3) on DEPB receipts. 5. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts while reducing profits of Arisht Spinning Mills, Unit - 1 eligible for deduction u/s 80IB by following amounts: - Particulars Amount(in Rs.) Rent received from employees 89,323/- DEPB Benefit 72,00,370/- 98,73,971/- Revenue has raised the following grounds

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

section 80HHC (3) on DEPB receipts. 5. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts while reducing profits of Arisht Spinning Mills, Unit - 1 eligible for deduction u/s 80IB by following amounts: - Particulars Amount(in Rs.) Rent received from employees 89,323/- DEPB Benefit 72,00,370/- 98,73,971/- Revenue has raised the following grounds

VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

section 80HHC (3) on DEPB receipts. 5. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts while reducing profits of Arisht Spinning Mills, Unit - 1 eligible for deduction u/s 80IB by following amounts: - Particulars Amount(in Rs.) Rent received from employees 89,323/- DEPB Benefit 72,00,370/- 98,73,971/- Revenue has raised the following grounds

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

section 80HHC (3) on DEPB receipts. 5. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts while reducing profits of Arisht Spinning Mills, Unit - 1 eligible for deduction u/s 80IB by following amounts: - Particulars Amount(in Rs.) Rent received from employees 89,323/- DEPB Benefit 72,00,370/- 98,73,971/- Revenue has raised the following grounds

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

section 80HHC (3) on DEPB receipts. 5. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts while reducing profits of Arisht Spinning Mills, Unit - 1 eligible for deduction u/s 80IB by following amounts: - Particulars Amount(in Rs.) Rent received from employees 89,323/- DEPB Benefit 72,00,370/- 98,73,971/- Revenue has raised the following grounds

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

section 80HHC (3) on DEPB receipts. 5. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts while reducing profits of Arisht Spinning Mills, Unit - 1 eligible for deduction u/s 80IB by following amounts: - Particulars Amount(in Rs.) Rent received from employees 89,323/- DEPB Benefit 72,00,370/- 98,73,971/- Revenue has raised the following grounds

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

section 80HHC (3) on DEPB receipts. 5. That the CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts while reducing profits of Arisht Spinning Mills, Unit - 1 eligible for deduction u/s 80IB by following amounts: - Particulars Amount(in Rs.) Rent received from employees 89,323/- DEPB Benefit 72,00,370/- 98,73,971/- Revenue has raised the following grounds

HIMACHAL PRADESH BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,KANGRA vs. DCIT (E), C-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,73,95,085/-as well. In view of the above, the action of Ld. AO of treating the excess of income over expenditure of Rs. 47,39,788/- as taxable income is upheld. Ground of appeal is dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) 4. It is seen that in the subsequent assessment

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall