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 CORE METAL KRAFTS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-5(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

79,986/- (2,31,778+2,48,208) 2) Interest on TDS, Income Tax Penalty paid = 7,477/- 3) Difference in reconciliation income As per bonus and Form 26AS = 40,057/- 4) ESI penalty = 10,431/- 5) Interest on refund not returned As income = 21,852/- A.Y. 2013-14 Page 4 of 9 4. The arguments of the Ld.Counsel

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT.LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections filed by

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 315 & 316/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Acit, M/S Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., बनाम Circle-2(1), Plot No.17, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh

79,98,8000/- The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the AO passed assessment order determining the total income at Rs.133,03,80,120/- inter alia making addition of Rs. 90,91,34,741/- on account of disallowance of lease rental claimed by the assessee on set top boxes taken on lease, addition

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FASTWAY TRANSMISSIONS PVT.LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections filed by

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 315 & 316/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Acit, M/S Fastway Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., बनाम Circle-2(1), Plot No.17, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh

79,98,8000/- The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the AO passed assessment order determining the total income at Rs.133,03,80,120/- inter alia making addition of Rs. 90,91,34,741/- on account of disallowance of lease rental claimed by the assessee on set top boxes taken on lease, addition

SH. DHARAM PAL AGGARWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation, telephone and travelling expenses on account of estimated personal use thereof. 3. Vide ground no. 1 the grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 13,77,730/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 4. Facts

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 under the Act has been computed. [Para 5] In the instant case, after the service of the notice under section 148, the assessee had filed its objections for reopening the assessment to the effect that in the light of the binding decision of High Court and the decision of the Tribunal there

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)

79,80,694/- in respect of purchase of an immovable property situated at New Shimla. 23. Further, during the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO also brought the tax capital gains arising on sale of the land and super structure amounting to Rs. 2,36,10,000/-. While doing so, the AO rejected the contention advanced by the assessee that

VIMAL GROVER,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO WARD 5, YAMUNANAGR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 957/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 बनाम Shri Vimal Grover, The Ito, 1473, Basement & Ground Floor, Ward 5, Vs Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaypg3728P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2026 Hybrid Hearing

Section 54 of the Act. 7. The ld.CIT (Appeals) did not accept the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the addition on the ground that assessee has shown unexplained credit in the accounts which deserves to be added in his income. 8. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessment in A.Y. 2014-15 was made

DCIT-CC-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S LAXMI ENERGY & FOODS LTD.,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 33/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Laxmi Energy & Foods बनाम Ltd., Central Circle-Iii, Sco 18-19, Sector 9-D, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl3147J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

section 14A is triggered for disallowance of expenditure incurred which is relatable to tax exempt income even though no tax exempt income under the Act has been earned during a particular year?" 4. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before is heard and disposed off. 2. Appeal on Ground

ACIT, C-7, LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

depreciation claimed by appellant on the profit arrived at by applying net profit rate of 6.5% on the total receipts instead of flat rate of 12% applied by the AO. iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,19,383/- made u/s 69C of the Income

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed that no fault with the suo-moto disallowance made

ACIT,CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed that no fault with the suo-moto disallowance made

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed that no fault with the suo-moto disallowance made

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed that no fault with the suo-moto disallowance made

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

79,624/- made by the assessee was subtracted, to arrive at final balance disallowance of Rs. 14,98,15,974/-. When the Ld. CIT(A) directed the amended provision of Rule 8D to be applied, the disallowance got to be calculated at Rs. 3,14,83,443/-. It remains undisputed that no fault with the suo-moto disallowance made

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

79,780/- dt. 27/09/2018 . The said acceptance of returned income is arrived after a proper inquiry and verification because prior to thereto notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were duly served to the assessee firm and that they were suitably replied with all material information so that computation of income is done in just and proper

ACIT, PATIALA vs. M/S THE STATE BANK OF PATIALA, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the case of the assessee for the year under consideration.” 43. It was common ground between both the parties that the issues raised in the above grounds were identical to that raised in ground Nos.2 & 3 respectively of the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.787/Chd/2017 dealt with

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,PATIALA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D & The A.C.I.T., Vs. The State Bank Of India, Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D The State Bank Of India, Vs. The A.C.I.T., (Successor Of State Bank Of Patiala) Circle Patiala, The Mall, Patiala. Pan: Aaccs0143D

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the case of the assessee for the year under consideration.” 43. It was common ground between both the parties that the issues raised in the above grounds were identical to that raised in ground Nos.2 & 3 respectively of the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.787/Chd/2017 dealt with