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

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

13%. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the above said addition of TRIPTI SAINI 2024.03.22 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:041731-DB ITR-3-2010 (O&M) -10- Rs.34,28,414/- made by the A.O by observing that this addition was made merely on conjectures and surmises and as such could

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

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

13. pur rele trad (O&M) and other connected ca uction under Section 36(1)(iii) ey borrowed for utilisation in the fore proceeding further it would come Tax Act, 1961 before ame vant and applicable in the years eproduce relevant portion of the arned Income Tax Tribunal, Cha levant portion of Section 36(1)(i ther Deductions:- ction

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

2) of the Act on 29.05.1996, relates to disclosure of accounting policy. It puts an obligation on the assessee to disclose all significant accounting policies adopted in the preparation and presentation of financial stages. As per this standard the term “Accrual” refers to the assumption that MANJU 2023.03.16 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S. GENEX INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

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

2] law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in confirming the decision of the CIT (A) without examining that the transaction was without any business consideration or commercial expediency and therefore, the interest claimed on borrowed funds was not allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) Whether the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 passed by ITAT

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

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

2] specifying what was wrong with Assessing Officer's order as of why penalty was not leviable in this case? (ii) Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. ITAT has erred on facts and in the law in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that addition made

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, 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

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 ‘assessee

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