KARAN PAL SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 870/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sh. Rajeshwar Sharma, The I.T.O., बनाम Ward 6(2), House No.584, Sectro 59, Mohali Phase-4, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amdps4641Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Chandigarh Dated 28.3.2018

disallowed the same for different reasons. 7. In appeal, so far as the observation of the Assessing officer that the benefit of section 10(10-A) of the Act was not available to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) held that as per the provisions of section 10(10A

DHARAM SINGH RAWAT,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(3), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 870/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sh. Rajeshwar Sharma, The I.T.O., बनाम Ward 6(2), House No.584, Sectro 59, Mohali Phase-4, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amdps4641Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Chandigarh Dated 28.3.2018

disallowed the same for different reasons. 7. In appeal, so far as the observation of the Assessing officer that the benefit of section 10(10-A) of the Act was not available to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) held that as per the provisions of section 10(10A

RAJESHWAR SHARMA,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 870/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sh. Rajeshwar Sharma, The I.T.O., बनाम Ward 6(2), House No.584, Sectro 59, Mohali Phase-4, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amdps4641Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Chandigarh Dated 28.3.2018

disallowed the same for different reasons. 7. In appeal, so far as the observation of the Assessing officer that the benefit of section 10(10-A) of the Act was not available to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) held that as per the provisions of section 10(10A

SH. SARABJIT SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(2), MOHALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.764/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowed the same for different reasons. 4. In appeal, so far as the observation of the Assessing officer that the benefit of section 10(10A

ARUN DHIR,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 97/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Arun Dhir, Vs The Dcit, House No.1150, Sector 21-B, Circle-1, Chandigarh. Sector 17,Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aarpd0180F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

disallowed. This application has been dismissed by the AO. 4. Appeal to the CIT (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. A.Y.2013-14 3 5. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that assessee was an employee of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories and worked for 25 years. According

SHRI ANIL SURI,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 127/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Anil Suri, Dcit, Circle 1(1), बनाम H.No.699, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amcps9331C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 56(xi) was inserted from A.Y. 2019-20. 3. A perusal of above grounds of appeal reveals that the assessee has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making / upholding the disallowance of claim made by the assessee u/s 10(10A

ASSOCIATED BIOTECH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, therefore, stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

disallowing the claim of deduction @ 100% us 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on account of substantial expansion of the Unit. 5. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in this appeal has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide

M/S GLOBE PRECISION INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,SOLAN vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13

10A or 10B of the Act [Section 80- IB(5)].” 5. Ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue is squarely covered by the above decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. It was, however, submitted that the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing officer for verification as to whether the assessees have actually carried

ITO, CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. M/S GLOBE PRECISION INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., BADDI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13

10A or 10B of the Act [Section 80- IB(5)].” 5. Ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue is squarely covered by the above decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. It was, however, submitted that the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing officer for verification as to whether the assessees have actually carried

M/S GLOBE PRECISION INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,SOLAN vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13

10A or 10B of the Act [Section 80- IB(5)].” 5. Ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue is squarely covered by the above decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. It was, however, submitted that the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing officer for verification as to whether the assessees have actually carried

ITO, CIRCLE, PARWANOO vs. M/S GLOBE PRECISION INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., BADDI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13

10A or 10B of the Act [Section 80- IB(5)].” 5. Ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue is squarely covered by the above decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. It was, however, submitted that the issue be restored to the file of the Assessing officer for verification as to whether the assessees have actually carried

M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS,SOLAN vs. ITO, BADDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, therefore, stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowing the claim of deduction @ 100% us 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on account of substantial expansion of the Unit. 5. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in this appeal has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide

EMMBROS AUTOCOMP LTD,,BADDI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaemmbros Autocomp Limited, Vs. The D.C.I.T., (Village Katha Baddi), Sco 27, Circle Parwanoo. 1St Floor Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 5, Swastick Vihar, Panchkula. Pan: Aaace3489Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of claim of deduction under 80IC of IT Act Rs.15,31,241/- which was claimed @ 100% of the of such profits and gains of Embross Export unit and of Rs.21,87,486/- but allowed at 30% of such profits and ignoring the fact that substantial expansion was carried out in AY 2008-09 and deduction was admissible

M/S MICROPET INDUSTRIES,KALA AMB vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & therefore the said order deserves to be set aside. 2. The ld. AR submitted that the point at issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Stove Craft India

M/S OM PLASTICS,BADDI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Om Plastics, Vs. The Dcit, Village – Swaraj Majra, Circle, Near Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Parwanoo. Baddi, Distt. Solan (Hp). Pan No. : Abfo4821C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the benefit of substantial expansion u/s 80IC(2) and confirming the deduction u/s 80IC only to the extent of 25% as against 100% by holding that benefit of substantial expansion is allowable only to the undertaking which were existing as on 07.01.2003. 2. However, before we address the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal

INNOVA CAPTAB,BADDI vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Innova Captab, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Plot No.81B, Epip, Circle Parwanoo. Phase 1, Jhamajri Pan: Aaffv6014N (Appellant) (Respondent)

10A or 10B of the Act [Section 80- IB(5)]. 8. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court i.e. Himachal Pradesh High Court in favour of the assessee. In view of the above, since the issue of claim of deduction

M/S INNOVA CAPTAB,BADDI vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Innova Captab, Vs. The D.C.I.T., Plot No.81B, Epip, Circle Parwanoo. Phase 1, Jhamajri Pan: Aaffv6014N (Appellant) (Respondent)

10A or 10B of the Act [Section 80- IB(5)]. 8. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court i.e. Himachal Pradesh High Court in favour of the assessee. In view of the above, since the issue of claim of deduction

ASSOCIATED BIOTECH,NALAGARH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PARWANOO

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Associated Biotech, Vs. The Dcit, Vill. Kishanpura, Circle, Nalagarh, Distt-Solan(Hp). Parwanoo. Pan No. : Aalfa5132G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing deduction, amounting to Rs. 2,78,57,589/-, u/s 801C, without appreciating the fact that the act allows deduction of 100% for first five years after substantial expansion. Further the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of M/s Stovecraft India Vs CIT has held that deduction of 100% for first five years after substantial expansion is allowed