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). 9. In the present case, the assessment year is 2006-07 and hence disallowance has to be worked out on reasonable basis under Section 14 A . The method prescribed for the purpose of section 14A of the Act is contained in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”). Rule 8D had been inserted vide Notification

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

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

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

10 the following details have been given regarding production of worsted yarns:- All Wool 54,261 Viscose 73,244 Terry wool 55:45 49,955 Terry wool 70:30 1,37,769 Tweeds 41,233 Govt. material 44,391 Synthetic Fabrics 27,532 Millionore 64,260 Shawls, blankets and Lois 11,587 Carpet yarn 44,411 In view

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

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 and penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of account. The appellant filed appeal against order dated 29.12.2006 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana, who vide

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

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

10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITR No.33-36 of 1995 -2- JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 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

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

disallowance made by A.O. w.r.t. electricity duty under Section 43B of the 1961 Act. DINESH KUMAR 2022.08.23 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA Nos. 17, 30, 51, 33, 105, 119 and 87 of 2021 (O&M) 3 4. The matter was taken before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to 'Tribunal

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

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

disallowance of Rs.1,00,19,424/- made by the Assessing Officer in computing the book-profit u/s 115JB in respect of depreciation claimed on land after amortization of land by the assessee because there is no depreciation allowable on land under Companies Act and no rate of depreciation is provided in schedule XIV of Companies Act?” 7. “Whether

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

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 of Act 1961, the deduction has to be given in one financial

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. The matter relates to Assessment

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

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

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 (1

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

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

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 was never claimed; and (iii) Disallowance of DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.22 10

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH vs. M/S IMPROVEMENT TRUST BATHINDA

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

1)Improvement Trust Bathinda is providing “Public utility services” and not for the purpose of profit. (2)That the functions of Improvement Trust Bathinda in Punjab is the same before the amendment of the Act and after the amendment of section 2(15) of the Act. (3)From the Balance sheet we find that there is always Loss. PANKAJ BAWEJA

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

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

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

1) of the I.T.Act by ignoring the fact that such expenditure is covered u/s 35D of the I.T.Act ? 4. The first substantial question of law in both the above mentioned appeals has already been concluded by this Court on 06.08.2008 against the revenue in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income

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

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

1) During the assessment proceedings, the identity and creditworthiness of the parties subscribed share capital remained unproved and the genuineness of the transaction was also unproved, therefore, the capital of Rs.55,00,000/- was treated as income from undisclosed sources of the assessee’s company. (2) No information/details in respect of the share application money amounting to Rs.51

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) GURUGRAM vs. M/S MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY TRUST

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

1)(a) Less: Fixed assets considered as applied towards income from properties held for charitable purposes during the year during the year 65.73.64.136.73 22,79,04,609.17 Total Taxable Income Nil Unapplied fixed assets expenditure during the year : 42,94,59,527.56” 3. The PCIT invoking its powers under Section 263 of the Act revised the assessment order