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

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

1,72,537 16,376 8.66% 9. 1983-84 5,08,958 76,336 13.04% Thus, it was submitted that the A.O went on an erroneous presumption by assuming that the percentage of wastage of 13.04% is excessive just by looking at the data of previous two years without appreciating the fact that the wastage of percentage accepted

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

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

section 1 e to 15% of the disallowance ma sis on which the CIT (A) has de on in expressing our surprise by No basis has been given as to w est could be made to the extent mpt will the ized rity han play nce said 8-99 rom for this 3.01 ked e is nder

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

Section 143(2) and 142(1) dated 03.08.2006 along with detailed questionnaire were issued and served upon the appellant on 07.08.2006. Appellant filed its reply dated 28.11.2006. After considering the reply, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana, vide order dated 29.12.2006, disallowed

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

1. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in dismissing appeal of the Revenue observing that ‘ in view of categorical finding of the Supreme Court we hold that the CIT(A) was correct in holding that advance against depreciation cannot be added under the computation

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

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

disallowing the 1961. It is submitted that the 1, are limited and the assessee correction in the original return ducted in the books of account Learned counsel submits that he Karnataka High Court was y dismissal of the LPA of the application U/s 154 of the Act, law as taken by the Karnataka

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

1, the Tribunal set aside the orders of authorities below to work out the disallowance on reasonable basis. It has been observed that it is the disallowance u/s 14A wherein expenditure incurred in relation to the income not includible in the total was required to be disallowed. In the case of Godrej & Boyce vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom), Bombay

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

1. ITA-17-2021 (O&M) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar .... Appellant Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. .... Respondent 2. ITA-30-2021 (O&M) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar .... Appellant Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. .... Respondent 3. ITA-51-2021 (O&M) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar .... Appellant Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran

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

2] law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in confirming the decision of the CIT (A) without examining that the transaction was without any 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

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

2] specifying what was wrong with Assessing Officer's order as of why penalty was not leviable in this case? (ii) Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. ITAT has erred on facts and in the law in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that addition made

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

2) [***] (2B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no allowance shall be made in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee on advertisement in any souvenir, brochure, tract, pamphlet or the like published by a political party. The agreement dated 10.11.1995 (A-1) falls under Section 37 of Act 1961. Moreover, as per Section 35AB

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

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

disallowed. Thereafter notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee claiming that the benefit of Section 80-I of the Act had wrongly been extended. Ultimately the Tribunal set aside this order holding that the primary condition of Section 147 of the Act viz 'reason to believe' (as defined by a plethora of judgments

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

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act') against the order dated 18.3.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench Chandigarh, in ITA No. 1280/Chd/2018 (Annexure A-3) for A.Y. 2015- 2016 and claiming following substantial questions of law :- “i. Whether on the facts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHD vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD.

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

disallowance u/s 80IC was allowed. was right in law in accepting ning part of expenditure relating 1,93,15,643/-, 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

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

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

1. The appellant through instant petition under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 28.02.2005 passed by 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

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

1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the JANKI BHATT 2019.12.10 15:03 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA-111-2018(O&M) 2 case, in accordance with the provisions of Section 40A(3) the disallowance

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

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

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner-M/s Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. (for short ‘assessee’) is engaged in the business of manufacture of consumer products. The assessee is selling its products inside as well

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

1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') were ordered to be initiated separately against it. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the order of assessment dated 20.12.2005, the respondent-assessee had filed appeal under Section 143 (3) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh (for short “CIT (A)”) who vide order dated

BALJINDER SINGH SALANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

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

1. The present order shall dispose of ITA-341-2018 filed by the assessee which is directed against the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh Bench bearing ITA No. 1058/Chd./2014 for the assessment year 2009-10 (Annexure A-3). The second appeal bearing ITA-297-2018 is directed against the dismissal