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 the capital gain account of Rs.38,61,259/- was proposed to be added back to the taxable income and charged to tax. Accordingly, the case of respondent was reopened and assessment under Section 143

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

143 ITD 571 (Chd) as the Punjab State Co-op Bank Ltd. is a scheduled Bank whereas the Kangra Central Co-op Bank Limited is not a scheduled Bank.” 4. Similar substantial questions of law were framed in ITA No.83 of 2018, with difference in the amount concerned. 5. The question involved in the present appeals is as to whether

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

143 ITD 571 (Chd) as the Punjab State Co-op Bank Ltd. is a scheduled Bank whereas the Kangra Central Co-op Bank Limited is not a scheduled Bank.” 4. Similar substantial questions of law were framed in ITA No.83 of 2018, with difference in the amount concerned. 5. The question involved in the present appeals is as to whether

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.

143(3) of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘Act’) was completed on 25.11.2016 and income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 11,85,64,020/- by making addition of Rs.10,22,046/- on account of disallowing 1% of total assessment of Rs. 10,22,04,600/- u/s 14A of the Act. 4. Assessee assailed above noted order