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

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

13. pur rele trad (O&M) and other connected ca uction under Section 36(1)(iii) ey borrowed for utilisation in the fore proceeding further it would come Tax Act, 1961 before ame vant and applicable in the years eproduce relevant portion of the arned Income Tax Tribunal, Cha levant portion of Section 36(1)(i ther Deductions:- ction

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

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

13,765/- 2006-07 36,39,146/- 2007-08 10,97,950/- 21. The entire emphasis of the revenue is on the fact that the assessee-Trust had earned profits by selling plots. This itself cannot be a ground for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act, especially when it is not disputed that the selling of plots

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

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

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

13 of the Act by the Assessee trust were found. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 23.08.2018 was issued asking the assessee VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.27 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA No. 41 of 2021 -4- as to why proceedings u/s 263 of the Act should not be initiated in its case

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

Section 36(2)(i), it has been specifically mentioned that bad debt can be allowed if the “written off” amount which was already shown in any previous year. Further, this bad debt was a loan given by the appellant not engaged in money lending business, which was never reflected as part of the income of the appellant. Therefore, despite being

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

Section 145 of the Act, unless he comes to a conclusion that notified accounting standards had not been regularly followed by such assessee. As such, the assessee could not be compelled to adopt completion method for one particular year on selective basis as in our considered opinion, that would certainly amount to distorting the computation of the true profits

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

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is seeking setting aside of order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in permitting the change in method of accounting