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

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

disallowed under section 36(1) (iii) of the Act. Such borrowings to that extent cannot possibly be held for the purpose of business but for supplementing the cash diverted without deriving any benefit out of it. Accordingly, the assessee will not be entitled to claim deduction of the interest on MANOJ KUMAR 2023.06.06 11:11 I attest to the accuracy

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

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

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

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 and circumst authorities below not to con purchase and of sale outsid activities of a business

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

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

4. In his order passed under Section 263 of the Act, the PCIT nowhere mentioned any error committed by the Assessing Officer and relies on the investigation report which was considered at length by the assessing officer. Various points highlighted by him in the order passed are (a) Siphoning of money from the trust by booking bogus expenditure

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

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

11 and 2011- 115JB of the I 3. L and it is a se taken up the application un powers under ought to have already filed under the hea merely becau affirmed by t revenue, the a 1961 on acco High Court re 4. W counsel and e there is any s in the present [2] (O&M) and connected

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

4,72,723/- 2004-05 80,346/- 2005-06 10,13,765/- 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

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

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

Section 265 of towards healthcare business as by this Court in its order dated assessment year 1999-2000 i.e. AY 2000-2001. w s e f s f e r d t d g , d e e h h f s e f s d . RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.22 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

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

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

Disallowed deduction beyond 80% of expenses relating to production of advertising material i.e. video film. 3. The parties approached Tribunal seeking reference on different issues to the High Court. The Tribunal and thereafter this Court considered few questions to be answered by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for assessee pointed out that issue with respect to DEEPAK BISSYAN

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD

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

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 11,94,97,875/- on account of balance of excise duty lying in PLA and RG23 as the payment was made before incurring the liability to pay such levy? 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that questions No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 stand answered by this Court

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

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

11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.140 of 2013 (O&M) -2- case was selected for scrutiny. Assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was completed on 24.12.2008 by making the following additions:- “(1) During the assessment proceedings, the identity and creditworthiness of the parties subscribed share capital remained unproved

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

4. ITR-65-1995 M/S.SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. ...Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Respondent 5. ITR-66-1995 M/S.SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. ...Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Respondent 6. ITR-67-1995 M/S.SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. ...Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Respondent DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.01 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity

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 vs. M/S MUKERIAN PAPERS LTD

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), who in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT ( 60 ITR 52 ) and one C.B.D.T’s Circular No.56, held that the expenditure relatable

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

section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that “income” includes profits and gains and the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year is taxable?” 3. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case Anuradha 2019.09.25 11:40 I attest to the accuracy

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 (3) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh (for short “CIT (A)”) who vide order dated 09.11.2006, allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the disallowances so made. It was now the turn of the revenue to feel aggrieved by the order of CIT (A) who filed appeal before the Tribunal challenging

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

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

4,33,375 65,663 13.16% 7. 1981-82 6,69,732 66,855 9.08% 8. 1982-83 (3 months) 1,72,537 16,376 8.66% 9. 1983-84 5,08,958 76,336 13.04% Thus, it was submitted that the A.O went on an erroneous presumption by assuming that the percentage of wastage of 13.04% is excessive just

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