M/S KAKKAR COMPLEX STEELS (P) LTDE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF IT

Appeal is allowed and

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

2). Such written down value had to be specified without taking into account the initial depreciation because such depreciation in terms of clause (vi) of section

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

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

Section 2 the purpose of assessment of property? The back drop of this appeal is hased property in their names ha and thereafter constructed godow SUP and Punjab Ware Housing from these agencies were issued -1- B AND HARYANA H ITA No. 20 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.09.2024 … Appellant …Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH cate assisted

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 under this Act has been computed.” 4. On the other hand the stand of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee is that explanation 2 can only be read subject to main provision of Section

MANGE RAM MITTAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

section (2) of computing deductions under urposes of the said aggregation, to set off of brought forward VI or unabsorbed depreciation

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

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

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. Punjab & Haryana High Court

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 for appellant e respondent-assessee on the b I.T. Vs. Haryana Hotels Ltd., (2

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

2 rate of 12% on the total gross receipt was reduced to 6.5% of the total gross receipt. Addition under Section 69C of the act on account of unexplained expenditure was deleted. The order passed by CIT(A) was taken in appeal before ITAT by the revenue. The appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. 4. We have heard counsel

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

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

2. The appellant has raised two questions with respect to addition/deduction. The appellant claimed deduction of Rs.6,24,819/- with respect to expenses incurred on guest house. The appellant claims that it paid lesser dearness allowance to its employees who used guest house, thus, there should be presumptive receipt from the employees against the actual expenditure incurred on guest house

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

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 in law in upholding the order

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

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 in law in upholding the order

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

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

2, 4 and 6 stand answered by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in ITA-267-2009, order dated 27.01.2026 passed in ITA-645-2008, order dated 19.01.2026 passed in ITA-269-2009 and order dated 27.11.2025 passed DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.09 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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

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

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, the ITAT is right

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

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 of the case