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

90,768/- which was set off against the brought forward losses. However,\ntax was paid under sections 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, notice\nunder section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.03.2017 was issued after\napproval from the Worthy Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and thereafter, the\nassessment was completed on 12.10.2017. The Assessing officer during

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)

90,768/- which was set off against the brought forward losses. However, tax was paid under sections 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.03.2017 was issued after approval from the Worthy Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and thereafter, the assessment was completed on 12.10.2017. The Assessing officer during

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

90,153 Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (AY 6,27,75,303 2010-11) Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 15,17,461 Course Disallowance of Donation 1,10,000 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

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

90,153 Non-utilisation of accumulated Funds (AY 6,27,75,303 2010-11) Disallowance of Revenue Expenditure on AME 15,17,461 Course Disallowance of Donation 1,10,000 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

VIMAL ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. JAO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, PATIALA, PUNJAB

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

90,550/- against the total turnover of Rs. 67,57,30,991/- as per page 19 of PB and the books of account of the assessee are duly audited and assessee maintains regular stock register which is declared in the tax audit report at point no 35(b) at page 15 and 53 to 59 of PB and the complete

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

depreciation during the year under consideration. During^ the assessment proceedings the assessee has not produced any bills/Vouchers/proof of payment/copy of accounts of the building as Capital Work in Progress to substantiate the claim of source of investment made for the construction of building. The onus to prove the sources of the surrender income lies entirely on the assessee because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the\nrelevant\nyear).\nassessment\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred relevant\nyear).\nto\nas the\nassessment\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the\nrelevant assessment\nyear).\nUp to Finance Act 2020\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation\nallowance or any other\nallowance or deduction\nfor such assessment year\n(hereafter in this section\nand in sections 148 to 153\nreferred relevant\nyear).\nas the assessment\n147. If the 5 [Assessing] Officer [has\nreason to believe”] that any income\nchargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment for any assessment year,\nhe may, subject to the provisions\nof sections

DCIT, C-1 (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

90,000/-\nusing the funds of the assessee stating that these allegations have not\nled to any additions or disallowance and there is no need to discuss this\nissue, whereas it is a ground for proving non-charitable object of the\nassessee?\nvii)\nWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.\nCIT(A) has erred

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation on forging press after being satisfied with explanation of assesse which was supported by documents, Commissioner was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263. Ved Parkash Contractors Vs. PCIt as reported in (2017) 88 taxmann.com 393 (Chandigarh – Trib) The order of the Assessing Officer may be brief and cryptic but that by itself is not a sufficient reason

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAGADHARI vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Tribunal. The Relevant Ay Is 2016-17 & Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054712149(1) 28/07/2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Act, Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

90,11,684/- out of total expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,80,23,368/-. iii) Addition of Rs. 3,58,80,358/- claimed as corpus fund. iv) Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 3,34,759/-. 3. The aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears no. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/1014465877(1) dt. 21/12/2018. 4. That the assessee

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

90,99,746/-, out of which, amount of Rs. 1,03,65,450/- is relating to Professional in Nature and the remaining expenses of Rs. 37,13,516.96 is relating Rates and Taxes, which has been reported in Schedule No.28 at page 41, under the head of Rate & Taxes, which amounts

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3.4 Regarding Motor Car Expenses the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had claimed expenses related to motor vehicles. These included depreciation, maintenance costs, and insurance for vehicles, one of which was a Toyota Fortuner. The AO suspected that the vehicles might have been used partly for personal

BANGA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI vs. ITO, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

depreciation chart, loan documents, and ledger accounts. It was pointed out that the AO made the addition on mere presumption and failed to appreciate that all requisite details had already been submitted, both during the assessment and appellate proceedings. 6. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the form

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)

90 Taxmann.com 2(SC). The Tribunal followed the said Supreme Court decision. For A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15, the same is the fate of the assessee’s case before the Tribunal and relying thereon has rightly been placed on behalf of the assessee. The factum of the Department being before the Hon’ble High Court in these cases

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)

90 Taxmann.com 2(SC). The Tribunal followed the said Supreme Court decision. For A.Y. 2011-12 to 2014-15, the same is the fate of the assessee’s case before the Tribunal and relying thereon has rightly been placed on behalf of the assessee. The factum of the Department being before the Hon’ble High Court in these cases