MANGE RAM MITTAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1) of expired, on the basis of entries me or transactions as recorded in and other documents maintained e on or before the date of the relating to such previous years; ettlement has been made under tion 245D, on the basis of such of undisclosed income had been clause (c) of section 158BC, on ssment. of determination of undisclosed

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

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 30-9-2014 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 2618/Del/2008 for Assessment Year 2005- 2006, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- 1. “Whether, on the facts

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

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

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

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): Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

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

1) or sub-section (3), (i) no allowance shall be made in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee after the 28th day of February, 1970, on the maintenance of any residential accommodation in the nature of a guest- house (such residential accommodation being hereafter in this sub-section referred to as "guest-house") ; (ii) in relation

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, P.KULA vs. M/S HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.

Appeal is dismissed in view of

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

depreciation for the succeeding y carried forward as the valid ret allowed under Section 139(1) of t Learned counsel

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHD vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD.

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

1,93,15,643/-, Depreciation of nditure on R&D u/s 35(2) of revenue expenses on scientific 36,344/- to the Baddi Unit or ion u/s 80IC, when the assessee n e ) o e d e ) C g g f f c r e RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES & EXPORT CORPN. LTD

The appeal stands disposed of

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

1] This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23.03.2011 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh passed in ITA No.79/Chandi/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. [2] Following question of law is claimed:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right

CIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB SMALL IND. AND EXPORT CORP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of

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

1] This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 30.05.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh passed in ITA No.611/CHD/2006 for the assessment year 2003-04. [2] Following question of law is claimed:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right

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

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

1. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.03.2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘ITAT’). 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- i. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

1. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 05.04.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘ITAT’). 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

1. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.03.2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘ITAT’). 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S Y.S. AND CO-OWNERS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ETC.

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

depreciation deduction @ appellant we explore the r provisions of attracted. 6. co-owners ha ITRs, there w 7. passed by th applicable to 8. 9. Companies j landlord and loans were a Y.S. & Co-ow was to be t Tribunal has f . 20 of 2008 on the cost of plinths was r @ 10% on the cost of plinths

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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-61-2021 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.08.2022 Chief Commissioner of Income Tax OSD Ludhiana .... Appellant Versus M/s. Ceigall India Ltd., Ludhiana .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder