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

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

disallowance of deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision

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

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

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

CIT CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER

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

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80-I of the 1961 Act, in as much as the machineries had been

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

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

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80-I of the 1961 Act, in as much as the machineries had been

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

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

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80-IA of the 1961 Act, in as much as the machineries had been

CIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD.

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

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80-IB of the 1961 Act, in as much as the machineries had been

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

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80-I of the I.T. Act, 1961, in as much as the machineries had been

STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

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

Disallowance under Section 14(A) on the securities held in stock; (ii) Applicability of Section 41(4) read with 36(1)(vii) with respect to recovery of bad debts which were written off in the earlier assessment years, however, deduction

M/S PANCHSHEEL TEXTILE MANFAC. & TRAD. vs. C I T AND ANR.

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

deduction out of the e head 'income from other sourc making the disallowance, in our For assessment year 1999-20 rived

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SWARAJ ENGINES LTD MOHALI

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

deduction was gone into detail by the A.O and a portion of it was disallowed. Thereafter notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued

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

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

deduction of expenses incurred on expansion outside the country and warranty claim have been disallowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment

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

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

disallowing p same was exa 2004 and to and were dele assessment y albeit on acco 2013 again h deduction

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

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of Rs.50,00 keeping in view the past hi already set aside the ord rejection of book results a there is no point in ma asonable. However, while doing owed deduction

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

deducted under Section 37 of Act 1961 on account of expenditure of Rs.61,38,000/- paid to M/s Mckinsey and Company Ltd for professional serviced rendered by it. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LIMITED

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

deduction of whole ny for the assessment year 2010- he MAT liability under Section t ‘the Act, 1961’) accordingly. he case had a checkered history eedings where the assessee had CIT (Appeals) disallowing

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

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

deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since no information was furnished by the assessee nor any evidence is available on record to substantiate the claim of the assessee as genuine, the expenses of Rs.2,00,00,000/- not relating to the business were disallowed

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

disallowed under section 36(1) (iii) of the Act. Such borrowings to that extent cannot possibly be held for the purpose of business but for supplementing the cash diverted without deriving any benefit out of it. Accordingly, the assessee will not be entitled to claim deduction