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

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

4. (Appeals), w holding that in the hands Act, as the Depreciation Gurdeep Sin purchase of (Appeals), ho income recei the same as u to be not fall income from 5. Amritsar. Th its order dat income of th . 20 of 2008 posited in one bank account. T ceedings to assess the income o .O.P. (Association of Persons). The appellant

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 under this Act has been computed; (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed

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” ignoring the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that “income” includes profits and gains and the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year is taxable?” 3. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances

MANGE RAM MITTAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

4) of sect order; (f) where an assessment o made earlier under c the basis of such asses Explanation. For the purposes income,- (a) the total income or lo for the purpose of agg income or loss comp provisions of "[this Ac of brought forward unabsorbed depreciat section 32: [Provided that in Chapter VI-A for the p effect shall

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

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

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

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 for the appellant and have gone through the records of the case. 5. Learned ITAT while dealing with the issue

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

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

4. Question No.3:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in allowing the deduction u/s 80-I of the 1961 Act, in as much as the machinery had been installed in the same existing factory premises, which is an expansion of the existing factory? 4.1 Learned counsel for appellant submits

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

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