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

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

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-385-2014 (O&M) -2- claimed Rs.10,50,000/- as “amount written off unrealizable”. The appellant filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2004-05 on 26.10.2004 showing income of Rs.1,70,99,800/-. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section

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

10. The constitutional validity of provisions of section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D has been upheld in Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd’s case (supra). However, Rule 8D shall not be applicable for assessment year prior to AY 2008-09; and the AO had to enforce the provisions of section 14A(1) by determining expenditure

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

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

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

10(33), the resultan t fall in the computation of gro ke of arguments that deduction purchase of shares was allowab the decision of the Supreme arehousing Corporation (supra), bar the deduction. We hold acco We may, however, place o re to be made only with ref allowance shall not be warrante view of the proviso to section voking section

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

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

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 Year 1997-98. The appellant is engaged

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

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

2. The brief facts are that assessee had claimed the deduction under Section 80-I of the Act in the year 1997-1998. In the final assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the issue of this deduction was gone into detail by the A.O and a portion of it was disallowed. Thereafter notice under Section

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 143 (2) was issued on 07.10.2004. After seeking relevant details and information from the respondent, its assessment for the concerned year was finalized. It was observed that the assessee had treated the money received by sale of plots/sheds as capital receipt and had not accounted for the closing stock of plots/sheds due to which revenue on these accounts

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 ROHTAK vs. M/S CRYSTAL PHOSPHATES LTD

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

Section 80-G. (10) The assessee-company had claimed total expenses of Rs.1,97,72,54,772/- under different heads in the P & L Account. No details were furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of these expenses. Moreover, the expenses under various heads were allowable only when TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since

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

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

disallowed. Huge salary being paid to the trustees by MMU Trust is not genuine. Interest paid to MMU Trust has been held by the PCIT as diverting of income. Rent paid to individuals by MMU Trust has been held to be not genuine. Admitting the Indian students in NRI quota without NRI status of any families held to be wrongful

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

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

2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that three issues are involved namely (i) 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 was never claimed

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

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

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

2. The appellant has raised two questions with respect to addition/deduction. The appellant claimed deduction of Rs.6,24,819/- with respect to expenses incurred on guest house. The appellant claims that it paid lesser dearness allowance to its employees who used guest house, thus, there should be presumptive receipt from the employees against the actual expenditure incurred on guest house

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

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

2. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.01.28 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-645-2008; and ITA-263-2009 -2- 3. The appellant

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

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

2. In ITA No.408 of 2006 for the assessment year 1995-96, the Revenue raised the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,70,98,415/- on account of interest on borrowed funds paid

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