DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY SANGARI & CO., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 234D is Rs. 86,121/-." 5. Order u/s 154 was passed on 22.03.2013 disallowing excess salary paid to the partners

TIRUPATI ENGINEERS AND CONTRUCTIONS,SANGRUR vs. ITO, SANGRUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) submitted that during appellate proceedings, several notices under Section 250 were issued but the assessee failed to file any written submissions or attend hearings. Considering repeated non-compliance, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Relying on judicial precedents, it was observed that an appeal requires active prosecution and mere filing is insufficient. As the assessee provided no evidence or arguments in sup

disallowed partners’ salary and interest due to absence of a certified copy of the partnership deed. Interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234D

M/S STATE BANK OF PATIALA,,PATIALA vs. ACIT,, PATIALA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing ground No. 6, which reads as under, without assigning any reason: "Gr. 6: That the Assessing Officer has erred in assessing the income at Rs. 182,89,16,277/- as against the returned income

M/S STATE BANK OF PATIALA,,PATIALA vs. ACIT,, PATIALA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia). 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing ground No. 6, which reads as under, without assigning any reason: "Gr. 6: That the Assessing Officer has erred in assessing the income at Rs. 182,89,16,277/- as against the returned income

M/S AUSTEES HYDRO POWER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 69C of the Act apply only to unexplained expenses and since the said amount did not pertain to any expenses incurred, there was no question of making any addition u/s 69C of the Act at all. 20. We have considered the contentions of both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR vs. M/S AUSTEE HYDRO POWER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD., BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 69C of the Act apply only to unexplained expenses and since the said amount did not pertain to any expenses incurred, there was no question of making any addition u/s 69C of the Act at all. 20. We have considered the contentions of both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue before

NIKHIL BECTOR,SARABHA NAGAR LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Off.

section 69A on account of cash deposited by the assessee out of cash in hand available ignoring the submissions made in respect of the said deposits. 3. That in any case the disallowance made is against the law and facts of the cases. 4. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in charging interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,NABHA vs. DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive

M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue, stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs.5,10,74,000, being 1/3rd of the expenditure on advertisement and promotion of Rs. 15,32,22,000 allegedly on the ground that the said expenditure resulted in promotion of brand name owned by the foreign company. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee is the exclusive