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

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

MANGE RAM MITTAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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 SINGH 2024.11.14 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA N 5

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 147 of the Act and the interpretation which the learned counsel for the appellant is trying to give

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

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

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 submitted object ing earned by the co-owners as Section

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

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

depreciation of any assets in a guest-house.” 4. It is apt to mention here that aforesaid sub-section stands omitted w.e.f. 01.04.1998. In the instant appeal period involved is prior to April’ 1998. By Section 37(4), the Legislature has categorically denied expenses with respect to guest house. There is no challenge to said provision. In view of Section

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

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

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

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

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

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