PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LIMITED

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

C nder Section 154 of the Act, r Section 154 of the Act, 1961 e filed a revised return and not with regard to the amount ded ad ‘Patents IPR Technologies’. use the judgment passed by th the Hon’ble Supreme Court by assessee could not have moved ount of the interpretation of the elating to Section 115J and 115JB

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

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

disallowing the rate of wastage, which is simply based on personal whims of the A.O. It was further submitted that the G.P. rate for the year under consideration is 24.92% which is highest from A.Y. 1975-76 onwards and once the assessee itself has come with the highest rate of G.P., no justification can be given to pin point

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

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

c) Land measuring 1.30 Acres for CIA staff “(Police Department)” Vide Resolution No.71 dated 12.12.2008 (free of cost). (d) “Community Hall” measuring 2000 sq. Yds. To be erected & built in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Gurukul Nagar, Gurukul Road, Bathinda, Vide Resolution No. 75 dated 30.09.2008 (free of cost). (e) The Trust is to provide “Service Lane” 16 wide with parking

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

11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITR-62 to 69-1995 -3- 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

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

1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') were ordered to be initiated separately against it. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the order of assessment dated 20.12.2005, the respondent-assessee had filed appeal under Section 143 (3) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh (for short “CIT (A)”) who vide order dated

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

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

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

disallowance of Rs.5,60,207/- and the appeal of the assessee was pending before CIT (A) and as per the CBDT instructions contained in Scrutiny Guidelines for F.Y. 2007-08 in clause 2 (v) (b) provided that all cases in which an appeal was pending before the CIT (A) against an addition/disallowance of Rs.5 lakhs or above, or the Department

CIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S MAX INDIA LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. ITA-557- 2. W as framed in p Court and the I H t r t I H S C e t n I t u i w p 3. B regard to al healthcare div already decid decision