H.P.STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA

2. The relevant assessment years are 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08. 3. For brevity the facts of the case involving assessment year 2002-03 are being considered herein. 4. By way of instant appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’), the assessee has assailed order dated

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

2 has been added subsequently by the Finance Act of 1989 but with retrospective effect from 11 April 1, 1984. In these References and appeals we are concerned with the application of Section 43B as it stood before the provisos were added. xxx xxx xxx In the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE KANGRA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

2 has been added subsequently by the Finance Act of 1989 but with retrospective effect from 11 April 1, 1984. In these References and appeals we are concerned with the application of Section 43B as it stood before the provisos were added. xxx xxx xxx In the case of Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana

M/s J C International vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax , Circle Parwanoo

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:17886 ) 2 eligible for various fiscal and non-fiscal benefits/incentives/exemptions offered by the Central and State Governments under different enactments, including benefit of deduction of profit under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and, therefore, return

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya.

Section 14A of the Act. It was accordingly opined that interest to the tune of Rs. 15,91,976/- was liable to be disallowed and such omission has resulted in under assessment of Rs. 5,69,930/- (Rs. 15,91,976 - Rs.10,22,046/-). An order u/s 154 of the Act was accordingly passed by A.O on 18.08.2017 whereby addition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SURYA TEXTECH THROUGH ITS PARTNERS

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Hon’Ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Income Tax Appeal No.18 Of 2021 Between:- Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh. ..….Appellant. (By Sh. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate With Sh. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate) & M/S Surya Textech, Vill-Rampur Jattan, P.O. Kala Amb, Nahan, Distt. Sirmour, (H.P) Through Its Partners Sh. Vikas Kansal. ......Respondent. This Appeal Coming On For Admission Before Notice This Day, Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Delivered The Following:- J U D G M E N T By Way Of Instant Appeal, The Appellant- Department Seeks To Assail The Order Dated 28.05.2020

2. The respondent-assessee-firm vide its return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declared income of Rs.7,36,735/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,22,83,721/- under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, vide order dated 27.03.2015 assessment under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Justice Sabina & Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya Income Tax Appeal No. 11 Of 2020 Between:- Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla. ….Appellant (By Sh. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate With Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate)

2 exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’) was claimed. On 29.11.2010 assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed and returned income was accepted. 4. An objection was raised by the Revenue audit that assessee (respondent herein) had neither purchased the new residential house before 30.09.2008 nor he had deposited capital