THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: It Should Be Reinstated & Decided On Merits ? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Itat Is Justified In Dismissing The Miscellaneous Application Of The Revenue Without Discussing The Merits Ignoring The Legislative Intent Expressed In Cbdt'S Anuradha 2020.02.12 17:37 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

disallowances u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income, when Supreme Court has upheld the principles of apportionment and department is in SLP on the same issue in the cases of Moderate Leasing and Capital Services Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 102 of 2018, A.Y. 2009-10 and Matrix Cellular Services (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 484 of 20174 and Nilgiri Infrastructure

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

addition to bank interest, FDRs, interest on unsecured loans was shown against which, the appellant VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.07.07 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-385-2014 (O&M) -2- claimed Rs.10,50,000/- as “amount written off unrealizable”. The appellant filed its return of income for the Assessment Year

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHD vs. M/S AGRI KING TRACTORS AND EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: It Should Be Reinstated & Decided On Merits ?” Ii. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Itat Is Justified In Directing The Assessing Officer To Verify The Claim Of The Assessee Having Not Earned Any Exempt Income In The Year Under Consideration & Allow The Relief Accordingly, Ignoring The Legislative Intent Anuradha 2020.01.30 16:03 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

disallowance irrespective of the fact whether any such income has been earned during F.Y. or not as confirmed by Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 91 Taxman.com 154 (SC) ? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT is justified in directing the assessing officer to verify the claim of the assessee

M/S INDUSTRIAL CABLES (INDIA) LTD., RAJP vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA & OR

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No.487/Chandi/1992 for the assessment year 1990-1991 disallowing the credit of Rs.89,854/- to the sister concerns on the specific ground that the advances given to the sisters concerns were not proved to be relating to the trading activities of the Assessee. 2 The following questions of law have been raised

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

Appeal is allowed

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

income by applying net profit AO to allow depreciation as per keeping the judgment of Hon'ble h Court in the case of Chopra accordingly. This part of the f appeal relates to the fact that justified in restricting the 0 from the trading addition made the case are that the AO had pplying net profit rate. separate enses

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S PIYUSH COLONIZERS LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance of `7,70,72,993/- and addition was restricted to `1,85,92,817/-. For the addition sustained, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty of `1,26,39,400/- was imposed vide order dated 30.3.2012. The 1st Appellate Authority set aside the penalty vide order dated 31.3.2015. The appeal filed

M/S SHREE DIGVIJAYA WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. AMRITSAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMT-TAX, AMRITSAR

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Income Tax on the ground that the assessee is carrying on the business of production of yarn for the last so many years and the percentage of wastage in the preceding years has consistently been more than 13% and it was only for the preceding two years that the percentage of wastage had come down. The assessee also submitted year

CIT-I CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PB.INFO&COMM. TECH. CORP. LTD. CHD.

The appeals are dismissed

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

disallowed and these observations did not deserve to be interfered with. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has placed reliance upon the authorities cited as Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Salarpuria Simplex Dwelling LLP, (2022) 216 DTR Judgments; Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd., (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S. GENEX INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

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

disallowing interest claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as ' the Appellate Authority') partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 22.2.2018, considering the fact that there were sufficient interest free funds available with the assessee from which interest free loan and advances were made. It was held that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MUKERIAN PAPERS LTD

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

addition of Rs.2,43,90,432/- on account of interest on borrowed funds paid for pre-operative period used for purchase of machinery by ignoring explanation 8 of section 43(1) ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing expenditure relating to the public issue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMERS, PATIALA

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.01.28 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-645-2008; and ITA-263-2009 -2- 3. 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 in law in permitting

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.(NOW GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.)

Appeal stands disposed of

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

income, while computing deduction us 80M of the I.T. Act, ignoring the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Industries. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H)? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals

CIT CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 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 in law in permitting the change in method of accounting with regard to the valuation of closing stock from absorption cost method to direct cost method? DEEPAK BISSYAN

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

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

Income- tax (Appeals) and restore the disallowance of Rs. 6,24,819/-.” DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.04 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-10-2005 (O&M) -3- 3. The expenses were disallowed by Tribunal relying upon Section 37(4) of 1961 Act. Section 37(4) reads as:- “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

M/S PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, GARHA ROAD , JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR AND ANR

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

disallowed to get benefit of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). ITA No. 33 of 2022 has been filed by the assessee arising out of order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the ITAT dismissing its ITA No.1426/Chd/2018 for the assessment year 2015-2016, upholding the order of the CIT (A) declaring the assessee not entitled

M/S GREWAL ELECTRONICS CORPN. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal stands dismissed

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

disallowed the prayer for setting off the amount under the intangibles of previous years. In appeal, the Commissioner Income Tax allowed set off to the tune of Rs.78,618/- in respect of intangible additions

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

addition of Rs.86,54,00,000/- made by AO in normal income as well as book profit computed u/s 115JB on a/c of tariff adjustments being unascertained liability?” 4. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that ‘the contention of the AO that this

BALJINDER SINGH SALANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

disallowance of expenses on account of wages paid to labour and without any material on record against the assessee? (iii) Whether the ITAT has erred in applying the provision of section-44AD for calculating the net profit ratio at 8% of the gross receipt which was treated as income of the assesse? (iv) Whether net profit ratio of earlier years