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

7. Although the 1952 circular was withdrawn in June 1978 in view of the decision of the Kerala High Court to the contrary in State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 336, the principle was reintroduced by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by another Circular dated October 9, 1984. The 1984 Circular clarified that

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

7. Although the 1952 circular was withdrawn in June 1978 in view of the decision of the Kerala High Court to the contrary in State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 336, the principle was reintroduced by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by another Circular dated October 9, 1984. The 1984 Circular clarified that

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

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IC for an amount of Rs.01,17,12,900/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide its order dated 28.11.2017 had allowed the appeal and held the appellant to be eligible to claim deduction of 100% of its profit under

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

7. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order dated 29.3.2005. The claim of the assessee for deduction of an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was disallowed and resultantly an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- was added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals

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 HYCRON ELECTRONICS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya.

Section 14A of the Act. It was accordingly opined that interest to the tune of Rs. 15,91,976/- was liable to be disallowed and such omission has resulted in under assessment of Rs. 5,69,930/- (Rs. 15,91,976 - Rs.10,22,046/-). An order u/s 154 of the Act was accordingly passed by A.O on 18.08.2017 whereby addition