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

4 Supreme Court Cases, 375, wherein it has been held as under:- “15. The result is that we follow and affirm the view taken by the majority by this Court in State Bank of Travancore case and hold that the interest which had accrued on the sticky advance has to be treated as income of the assessee and as such

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

4 Supreme Court Cases, 375, wherein it has been held as under:- “15. The result is that we follow and affirm the view taken by the majority by this Court in State Bank of Travancore case and hold that the interest which had accrued on the sticky advance has to be treated as income of the assessee and as such

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

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 for hearing vide order dated 11.10.2007 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1) Whether

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

4. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.01.2016, held that the condition of substantial expansion under Section ( 2025:HHC:17886 ) 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

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

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)

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 gain amount in the capital gain deposit account scheme. On this premise, exemption allowed to the assessee was recommended

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