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

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

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(34) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence, since dividend does not form the part of total income and when the financial burden incurred by the assessee for acquiring shares should have been proportionately disallowed by invoking section 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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

III) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 2618/Del/2008 for Assessment Year 2005- 2006, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- 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

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 MAJESTIC AUTO LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ANR

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

disallowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 1997-98. The appellant is engaged in the business of automobile parts. With intent to expand its business outside the country, it incurred travelling and staff expenses outside the country during 1995-96 and 1996-97. The appellant attempted to set up a unit in China. The project could not be materialized

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

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

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

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

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 no information was furnished

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

disallowed few expenses as well as assessed closing stock at the value different from value declared by assessee. The matter reached Tribunal through First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal partially allowed appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal decided following questions against the assessee:- (i) The assessee could change method of determination of value of closing stock, however, ordered

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

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

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

iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in dismissing the Miscellaneous application of the Revenue, without appreciating the fact that applicability of section 14A or Rule 8D does not depend on earning of income as held by Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajender Prasad Moody

CIT CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER

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

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 with regard to the valuation of closing stock from absorption cost method to direct cost method? DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.02 10:53 I attest

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S SUPERTECH FORGINGS PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

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

Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer, being not satisfied with the assessee reply, disallowed the entire purchases amounting to Rs.4,26,93,470/- holding as unverifiable purchases from the following parties:- Sr. No. Name of the concern Amount of purchases 1. Madan Lal Pahuja M/s. Shiv bholeKirpa Trade, Shivpuri, Ludhiana 1.05 Cr 2. Lovy Steel and Allied

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against the order dated 28.12.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') claiming following substantial questions of law: “(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) and the Ld. ITAT have erred on facts

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