MANGE RAM MITTAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

deductions under urposes of the said aggregation, to set off of brought forward VI or unabsorbed depreciation of section 32;] g s f f s n d e r h n n d l e f r f r d n VARINDER

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

depreciation @ 100% thereon? (iii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction

M/S VIJAY KUMAR GARG CONTRACTORS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

deduction on account of contrary to the judgment of rt of Punjab & Haryana High T Vs. Chopra Bros. (India) Pvt. the High Court by referring to -D(XIX)-14 dated 31.8.65 has estimated by applying net profit nd to allow depreciation

M/S KING EXPORTS THRU MADAN LAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : SUNIL 2025.11.07 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -8- ITA-96-2012 (O&M) Provided that where an assessment under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S NHPC LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

depreciation on land not allowable in Companies Act.” 8. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of Ld. CIT(A) to allow the contention of the assessee company for charging the interest u/s 234B at Rs.3,70,58,281/- instead of Rs.4

C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HELATHCARE LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

deduction under Section 80-I. Contention of appellant is not sustainable. Accordingly, aforesaid question is answered in favour of assessee. 5. Question No.5:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law in holding that expenditure incurred on implementation of the new ERP package, an input to take business decisions DEEPAK BISSYAN

INDUSTRIAL CABLES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

deduction as expenditure incurred for the purposes of business but since the employees of the company have stayed in the Guest House owned by the assessee, the expenditure incurred in respect of the same falls for the disallowance u/s 37(4). Allowing the set off of the presumptive recovery, would defeat the provisions of section 37(4) which

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SWARAJ ENGINES LTD MOHALI

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

deduction was gone into detail by the A.O and a portion of it was disallowed. Thereafter notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee claiming that the benefit of Section 80-I of the Act had wrongly been extended. Ultimately the Tribunal set aside this order holding that the primary condition of Section

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A). The Same Was Partly Allowed. The Addition Made By Applying Net Profit Dinesh Kumar 2022.10.16 16:54 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

depreciation is to be allowed from the income determined by applying the net profit rate of 6.5%.” DINESH KUMAR 2022.10.16 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-61-2021 (O&M) 3 6. While dealing with the issue of addition of unexplained expenditure, ITAT held that the issue is no more res integra

C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

deduction u/s 80-I of the I.T. Act, 1961, in as much as the machinery had been installed in the same existing factory premises, which is an expansion of the existing factory? 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that questions No.2 and 3 stand answered against Revenue by this Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court, thus