MASCOT FOOTCARE FARIDABAD THRG ITS PARTNER GUNJAN LAKHANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD (HARYANA)

The appeals stand dismissed

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

income not includible in the total was required to be disallowed. In the case of Godrej & Boyce vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom), Bombay High Court has held that section 14A supersedes the principle of law that in the case of a composite business

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

business of development and sale of industrial plots and sheds. It had filed return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 on 31.10.2003 declaring total taxable income for the relevant year along with carried forward losses. The return was processed. On scrutiny, notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 07.10.2004. After seeking relevant details and information from

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ROHTAK vs. M/S CRYSTAL PHOSPHATES LTD

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

business were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.” Against the said order, the assessee-respondent filed an appeal

M/S ROCKMAN CYCLES INDS. LTD. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, LDH. AND ANR.

The appeals are allowed and impugned orders are

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

income at Rs.1,88,79,150/- for the assessment year 1996-97 on 28.11.1996 and the same was processed under Section 143 (1) (a) of Act 1961, vide order dated 21.03.1997. The appellant-Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of cycles. During the relevant assessment year (96-97), the appellant-company claimed deduction on account of travelling expenditure incurred

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

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 of the case Anuradha 2019.09.25 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 11,94,97,875/- on account of balance of excise duty lying in PLA and RG23 as the payment was made before incurring the liability to pay such levy? 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that questions No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 stand answered by this Court

CIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S MAX INDIA LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Income Tax, expenses made towards the healt o the business of the assessee b no connection with existing busin III. Whether on the facts and in he Hon’ble ITAT is right in law under Section 263 by the Comm ssue of disallowance

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

M/S MAJESTIC AUTO LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ANR

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) to the extent deduction of expenses incurred on expansion outside the country and warranty claim have been disallowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 1997-98. The appellant is engaged in the business

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

business or commercial in nature. In that event, the claim for tax exemption would have to be again subjected to the rigors of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act.” 20. This Court in ITA No. 21 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala vs Young Scholar’s Educational Society, Barnala, decided on 08.05.2024 (authored

LALIT SINGLA R/O SARAI ALBEL SINGH OUTSIDE LAHORI GATE PATIALA PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX PATIALA PUNJAB

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI

disallowance can be made without appreciating the chargeability of transactions to tax by way of TCS forms in accordance with Section 206CA r.w. Rule 114A substantiating the purchases made and the genuineness thereof ? 3 . A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is in the business of retail selling

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

income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D of the Act. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances

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

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

Income Tax (Appeals) and restored order of Assessing Authority. Relevant extracts of impugned order read as:- “We have given careful consideration to the rival contentions. In our considered view, the disallowance of Guest House expenditure is to be made in accordance with the provisions of Act. The assessee has incurred the expenditure and claimed deduction thereof. Since the disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I LUDHIANA vs. M/S VERDHMAN TEXTILES LTD. LUDHIANA

Appeal is dismissed

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

business of the assessee and as the assessee could transfer such a right in case of transfer of assets, the said expenditure was held to be a capital expenditure and was disallowed and added back to the income

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER BRANDS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA

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

business of manufacture of consumer products. The assessee is selling its products inside as well as outside India. It filed Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1985-86. The Assessing Officer (for short ‘AO’) selected returns of the assessee and framed assessment under Section 143 (3) of Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, “1961 Act”). The AO disallowed

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

business consideration or commercial expediency and therefore, the interest claimed on borrowed funds was not allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) Whether the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 passed by ITAT is sustainable in the eyes of law or maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” The facts in brief are that