CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purposes as per the directions above

disallowance\non account of assessee's activity which amounted a business as per proviso to s.\n2(15) and thus, assessee was not entitled for exemption u/s 11(4A)—AO also\ndisallowed assessee's claim on account of depreciation—No relief was granted\nby CIT(A)-Held, it was not Revenue's case that transport facility was also\nprovided

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)

245-299) Iv. Notice dated 21.07.2021- Reply dated 28.07.2021 along with Annexures. (Page no. 300-312) b) Assessing Officer Replies 1. Notice dated 22.09.2019- Reply dated 13.10.2019(Page по. 313-322) ii. Notice dated 31.08.2021- Reply dated 08.09.2021 along with Annexures. (Page no. 323-457) E. Cost Accountant Certificate regarding cost of production of steam. F. Expanded Profit & Loss Account

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)

245-299) Iv. Notice dated 21.07.2021- Reply dated 28.07.2021 along with Annexures. (Page no. 300-312) b) Assessing Officer Replies 1. Notice dated 22.09.2019- Reply dated 13.10.2019(Page по. 313-322) ii. Notice dated 31.08.2021- Reply dated 08.09.2021 along with Annexures. (Page no. 323-457) E. Cost Accountant Certificate regarding cost of production of steam. F. Expanded Profit & Loss Account

M/S LUXMI BUILDERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. Further, it was also held that the approving authority must grant hearing to the assessee, the AO should place draft order atleast one month in advance of time barring date and only then final order can be passed. Further, it was also laid down

M/S GANESH BUILDERS,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. Further, it was also held that the approving authority must grant hearing to the assessee, the AO should place draft order atleast one month in advance of time barring date and only then final order can be passed. Further, it was also laid down

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

245) ITR 538 vi) CIT Vs. Gem India Manufacturing Co. 2001 (249) ITR 307 vii) Asprin Wall & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 2001 (251) ITR 323 viii) CIT Vs. Shri Mahesh Chnder Sharma 308 ITR 222 (2009) P&H ix) Computer Graphics case of Apex Court x) Gramphone Co. (India) ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

245) ITR 538 vi) CIT Vs. Gem India Manufacturing Co. 2001 (249) ITR 307 vii) Asprin Wall & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 2001 (251) ITR 323 viii) CIT Vs. Shri Mahesh Chnder Sharma 308 ITR 222 (2009) P&H ix) Computer Graphics case of Apex Court x) Gramphone Co. (India) ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

section 147/148 is arbitrary and bad in law and therefore assessment\nframed consequent thereto is obviously illegal and void ab initio and liable to\nbe quashed. We accordingly set aside the order of the Id. CIT(A) and hold re-\nassessment proceedings bad in law and also directing quashing of the re-\nassessment order.\n\nFortune Metaliks Limited vs DCIT