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

c) M/s Swaran Fastners Rs.3 lacs d) M/s Yuvraj Motors Rs.1.50 lacs 7. The above said amounts due from the parties were claimed to be written off in the books of account maintained by the assessee. The assessee has furnished copies of account of the respective parties during the financial year 2003-04 in the books of account of sole

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

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

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

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

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

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 09.11.2006, allowed