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

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

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 to Rs.50,000 by the AO. The facts of estimated the income by ap disallowance for the expe

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S MAX INDIA LTD

Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

disallowable under section 36(1)(iii) on interest free loan given to sister concerns whereas the aassessee itself in the same

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

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

disallowed. (7) The assessee had debited expenses on account of charity and donation of Rs.66,203/- and gift expenses

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

disallowed both the claims of the assessee-Company, vide order dated 26.02.1999 (A-1). Feeling aggrieved against the above

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. The income of the respondent-assessee was re-computed and penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income

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 irrespective of the fact whether any such income has been earned during the F.Y. or not as confirmed

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

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

disallowing the credit of Rs.89,854/- to the sister concerns on the specific ground that the advances given to the sisters

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

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

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

disallowed few expenses as well as assessed closing stock at the value different from value declared by assessee. The matter

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

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

disallowed the return of unrealized amount of Rs.10,50,000/- and added back the same to the income of the appellant

OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

disallowed depreciation nvestment made in the garmen machinery so set up was not used he Assessing Officer, disallow

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

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

disallowance of payment was no business need of the as payment? Both the counsels are at ad-idem llowability

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HISAR vs. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

disallowed and added back. 3. Aggrieved by the order, assessee approached CIT (Appeals). The appellate authority deleted disallowance

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

disallowing claim of indirect expenses thereby making an addition of `9,56,65,810/-. In appeal, the 1st Appellate

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