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

9. Minda Corporation limited vs DCIT ITA No. 1962/Del/2012 (ITAT Delhi). The Ld. Counsel concluding his arguments, has submitted that in any case it would be a revenue neutral exercise. Either the assessee would be entitled to lease charges or to depreciation. He is this respect has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case

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)

9,46,50,196) and Depreciation as Income Tax Act has been Reduced at Rs. 13,68,80,557 (Power Division (Eligible Unit)- 43,16,890 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)-13,25,63,667). In addition, we are enclosing copy of Depreciation Chart as per Companies Act, 2013 of Power Division (Eligible Unit) and Other Division (Non-Eligible Units

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)

9,46,50,196) and Depreciation as Income Tax Act has been Reduced at Rs. 13,68,80,557 (Power Division (Eligible Unit)- 43,16,890 & Other Divisions (Non-Eligible Units)-13,25,63,667). In addition, we are enclosing copy of Depreciation Chart as per Companies Act, 2013 of Power Division (Eligible Unit) and Other Division (Non-Eligible Units

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR 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)

depreciation in any year), as on the first day of the previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken." 9. The circular makes it clear that section

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

depreciation on vehicle to the extent of Rs. 9,01,873/- without any justification. ITA 4/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 3 12. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. 3.1 The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds : 1. That the approval u/s 153D was granted

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 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. The Ld. AO in the assessment order dt. 26/12/2016 has stated that return declaring income of profit of business is of Rs. 31,54,889/- filed on 29/11/2014 and same is set off against depreciation of 2012-13. The balance depreciation is as under: A.Y Amount of brought forward Amount

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

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

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)

9. The stand taken by the assessee is that the assessee was approved u/s 10(23C)(vi) and had claimed exemption thereunder, has not been disputed by the authorities below, that therefore, the ld. CIT(A) went wrong in upholding the disallowance made by invoking the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act; that since the assessee Society

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER PVT. LTD., NABHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 121/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, M/S Glaxosmithkline Circle 1(1), बनाम Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Patiala Road, Vs. Nabha. Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcg8415R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

9. Even otherwise, the erstwhile section 25(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 read as under: "25. Assessment in case of discontinued business.—(I) Where any business, profession or vocation [to which sub-section (3) is not applicable], is discontinued in any year, an assessment may be made in that year on the basis of the income, profits

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.

9,47,15,967/- and does not reflect any such assets eligible for additional depreciation. Thus the claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(ia) is not substantiated with either of the certificates. It is not clear whether the condition laid down in proviso to 32(iia) are fulfilled or not in case of assessee. Assessee relied upon various case laws

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

9,91,34,741/- (A.Y. 2016- 17) and Rs. 50,23,75,476/- (A.Y. 2017-18) taken on lease by the appellate company from M./s Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt. Ltd.” 2. The ld. DR pointed out that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own appeals

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

9,91,34,741/- (A.Y. 2016- 17) and Rs. 50,23,75,476/- (A.Y. 2017-18) taken on lease by the appellate company from M./s Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt. Ltd.” 2. The ld. DR pointed out that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own appeals

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)

9 143 (3) and another under section 147/148 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act. In addition to this the assessee firm has gone through further rigours of proceedings under section 263. The Ld. AR further contended that in prior A.Y 2017-18 the assessee’s firm was scrutinized too by same officer and nothing adversial

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

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

9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not allowing deduction under proviso to section 80HHC on export incentives amounting to Rs.79.04 Lacs being DEPB sold instead of 1.72 Lacs being profit on sale of DEPB. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 691/Chd/2007 for A.Y. 2002- 03: 1. That

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

9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not allowing deduction under proviso to section 80HHC on export incentives amounting to Rs.79.04 Lacs being DEPB sold instead of 1.72 Lacs being profit on sale of DEPB. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 691/Chd/2007 for A.Y. 2002- 03: 1. That

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

9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while not allowing deduction under proviso to section 80HHC on export incentives amounting to Rs.79.04 Lacs being DEPB sold instead of 1.72 Lacs being profit on sale of DEPB. Revenue has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 691/Chd/2007 for A.Y. 2002- 03: 1. That