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 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

143 (3) read with Section 147 of the Act vide order dated 04.12.2018 and income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.13,81,278/- by 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

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)

143(3)/147 of the Act was completed on 26.11.2014. The exemption claimed by the respondent was 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

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