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

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ix) Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified going beyond the pleadings in issuing the directions for enhancing the income by adding to the income the amount to the extent of which the said deduction has been set off against the liability when such a ground was neither agitated by either party

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

10. The decision of the High Court on the first question, having been based on the decision in State Bank of Travancore [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) must be held to be 19 incorrect in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.” 17. Learned counsel

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

10. The decision of the High Court on the first question, having been based on the decision in State Bank of Travancore [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) must be held to be 19 incorrect in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.” 17. Learned counsel

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.

disallowing 1% of total assessment of Rs. 10,22,04,600/- u/s 14A of the Act. 4. Assessee assailed above noted order of A.O before CIT(A) by way of appeal No. IT/174/16-17/SML and the same was rejected. 5. Subsequently A.O on re-assessment found that assessee had invested Rs.10,22,04,600/- in purchase of shares and mutual funds

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)

disallowed and total income was assessed at Rs.2,05,36,949/-. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had neither invested sale proceeds of the asset in new residential house nor he had deposited the capital gains to the capital gain account within the stipulated period. 5. Respondent assailed the above referred order of Assessing Officer before CIT(A), Shimla

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

disallowing deduction under Section 80IC to the extent of income of Rs. 6,44,538/-. 3. The assessee assailed the above noted assessment order before CIT(A) Shimla by way of Appeal No. IT/204/18-19/Sml. The appeal of assessee was allowed vide order dated 28.06.2019. 4. The Appellant-Department assailed the order of CIT(A), Shimla, before the ITAT, Chandigarh