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

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

12,274 Kgs. Less 60% of its as copper wire scrap out of 7384 Kgs 2/3 is considered as reasonable 7,384 Kgs. Balance recovernable 4,623 Kgs. The scrap value is taken @ Rs.50/- Per Kg. Thus, the value of 4623 Kgs Comes to Rs.2,31,150/- Less Value of scrap sold down Profit U/s 41(2

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

Section 36(2)(i), it has been specifically mentioned that bad debt can be allowed if the “written off” amount which was already shown in any previous year. Further, this bad debt was a loan given by the appellant not engaged in money lending business, which was never reflected as part of the income of the appellant. Therefore, despite being

BALJINDER SINGH SALANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

12:29 ITA Nos.341 and 297 of 2018 (O & M) 2 2024:PHHC:015604-DB disallowance of expenses on account of wages paid to labour and without any material on record against the assessee? (iii) Whether the ITAT has erred in applying the provision of 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

12% per annum. The total interest pertaining to the funds advanced to the partners (Smt. Suman Lakhani & Smt. Kamlesh Lakhani) on account of their debit balance with the firm came to Rs.3,25,674/- (92306+ 233368), interest of Rs. 3,25,674/ pertaining to the debit balances of the partners was disallowed as per the provisions

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

12. Bef 36(1) (iii) of Inc which was relev 2001 and to re passed by the le 13. Rel “O Sec “Se sha com xxx (iii) for Exp sha suc bor 14. Rel Tax Appellate T 13. pur rele trad (O&M) and other connected ca uction under Section 36(1)(iii) ey borrowed for utilisation in the fore

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

disallowed and these observations did not deserve to be interfered with. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has placed reliance upon the authorities cited as Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Salarpuria Simplex Dwelling LLP, (2022) 216 DTR Judgments; Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd., (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases

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

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

2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram has preferred these appeals against the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi, whereby it has set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the PCIT’) passed under Section 263 of the Income

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A). The Same Was Partly Allowed. The Addition Made By Applying Net Profit Dinesh Kumar 2022.10.16 16:54 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

2 rate of 12% on the total gross receipt was reduced to 6.5% of the total gross receipt. Addition under Section 69C of the act on account of unexplained expenditure was deleted. The order passed by CIT(A) was taken in appeal before ITAT by the revenue. The appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. 4. We have heard counsel

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

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

12% on interest free advances was disallowed. (7) The assessee had debited expenses on account of charity and donation of Rs.66,203/- and gift expenses of Rs.42,530/-, totaling to Rs.1,08,733/-, which were disallowed being not admissible as per provisions of the IT Act. (8) An addition of Rs.5,00,000/- is made out of total Foreign Travelling

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHD vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD.

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

disallowance u/s 80IC was allowed. was right in law in accepting ning part of expenditure relating 1,93,15,643/-, Depreciation of nditure on R&D u/s 35(2) of revenue expenses on scientific 36,344/- to the Baddi Unit or ion u/s 80IC, when the assessee

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

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

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

2. The petitioner-M/s Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. (for short ‘assessee’) is engaged in the business of manufacture of consumer products. The assessee is selling its products inside as well as outside India. It filed Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1985-86. The Assessing Officer (for short ‘AO’) selected returns of the assessee and framed

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

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

C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.09.2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘ITAT’). 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right