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

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

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

3 80-IC was applicable only for those units that existed and were operational as on 07.01.2003 (being the first date of window period specified in Section 80-IC as also the first date of incentives granted under other schemes/statutes), but not for the units that came into existence after the said date. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer denied deduction under

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

3,47,000 approximately during the three years in question as against a total sum or Rs. 4,37,828 incurred as the cost of production. The Tribunal was justified in the High Court's view that having regard to the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and in the light of the entries contained

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

3,47,000 approximately during the three years in question as against a total sum or Rs. 4,37,828 incurred as the cost of production. The Tribunal was justified in the High Court's view that having regard to the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and in the light of the entries contained

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(3

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

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 25.5.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh in ITA No. 1044/Chandi/2005. The appeal was admitted

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.

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