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 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

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.

10A or Section 10B of the Act and cannot b taxed separately under Section 56 of the Act. " 2. The Hon'ble High Court while pronouncing this judgment relied upon on many judgments for holding the above preposition; copy of the judgment is being enclosed herewith. 3. It is submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer by applying the net profit

M/S HIMACHAL HITECH,BADDI vs. ITO, BADDI

In the result, the captioned appeals stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment 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. 4. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in these appeals has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide

M/S ISKON REMEDIES,KALA AMB vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, the captioned appeals stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment 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. 4. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in these appeals has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide

M/S UPS INVERTOR.COM,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CIRCLE , PARWANOO

In the result, the captioned appeals stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment 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. 4. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in these appeals has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide

M/S DIGITAL SYSTEMS INC,BADDI vs. ITO, PARWANOO

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment 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. ITA No. 1700/Chd/2017- M/s Digital System Inc, HP 2 4. None was present on behalf of the assessee. However, during the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that

M/S SHREE BALAJI ENTERPRISES,BADDI vs. ITO, BADDI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, therefore, stands

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment 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. 4. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in these appeals has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide

M/S DIGITAL VISION,OGLI vs. ITO, NAHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, therefore, stands

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment 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 Units. 4. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in these appeals has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide

M/S DIGITAL VISION,OGLI vs. ITO, NAHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, therefore, stands

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment 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 Units. 4. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in these appeals has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide

M/S ZENITH INTERNATIONAL,SOLAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE , PARWANOO

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, therefore, stands

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment 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. 4. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in these appeals has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide

M/S ISKON REMEDIES,OGLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee, therefore, stands

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment 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 Units. 4. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in these appeals has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide

M/S UNIVERSAL PRINT O PACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PARWANOO

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. 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. ITA No. 1700/Chd/2017- M/s Digital System Inc, HP 2 4. During the course of hearing before us, it was brought to our notice that the issue involved in this appeal has already been adjudicated

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

section 10(10A) of the Act and denied the exemption claimed by the assessee on this account. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the record. Though in strict terms, it may not be said that the amount received by the assessee was on account of commutation of pension, however, the fact on the file

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

section 10(10A) of the Act and denied the exemption claimed by the assessee on this account. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the record. Though in strict terms, it may not be said that the amount received by the assessee was on account of commutation of pension, however, the fact on the file

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

section 10(10A) of the Act and denied the exemption claimed by the assessee on this account. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the record. Though in strict terms, it may not be said that the amount received by the assessee was on account of commutation of pension, however, the fact on the file

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