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

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

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

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 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

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

3)From the Balance sheet we find that there is always Loss. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2018.09.20 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document [HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH] ITA No. 161 of 2016 (O&M) & connected cases. -10- Asstt. Year Loss as per Audited B/S 2003-04 4,72,723/- 2004-05 80,346/- 2005-06 10

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

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

3. Sin Assessment Yea impugned order years is the sam and decision at r BRIEF FACTS 4. The business of man 1997-1998, the (O&M) and other connected ca HARMA, J. ese appeals pertaining to Assess have been preferred against ord e Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cha 5 for the Assessment Years 1998 e following substantial questions Whether in fact

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I LUDHIANA vs. M/S VERDHMAN TEXTILES LTD. LUDHIANA

Appeal is dismissed

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

10,52,040/-. Assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act was completed vide order dated AJAY PRASHER 2023.04.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.315 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 30.12.2009. However, the Assessing Officer, after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income

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

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

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 Industries, Sector 3, Gobindgarh 0.17 Cr 3. Jatinder Kumar Shree Nath Ispat Udhyog, Gobindgar

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

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 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-200-2012 -2- unclaimed balance in Nostro-Blocked account. 3

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

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

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

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

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

Section 143 (3) of Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, “1961 Act”). The AO 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 against the assessee:- (i) The assessee could change

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

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

3) xxxxx.” Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," know- how" means any industrial information or technique likely to assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or in the working of a mine, oil well or other sources of mineral deposits (including the searching for, discovery or testing of deposits or the winning of access thereto

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

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