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

3)From the Balance sheet we find that there is always Loss. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2018.09.20 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document [HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH] ITA No. 161 of 2016 (O&M) & connected cases. -10- Asstt. Year Loss as per Audited B/S 2003-04 4,72,723/- 2004-05 80,346/- 2005-06 10,13

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

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

3. Sin Assessment Yea impugned order years is the sam and decision at r BRIEF FACTS 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

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

13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court,Chandigarh ITA No. 214 of 2019 [3] (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2016 (381) ITR 107. Learned counsel for the revenue is not in a position to dispute that the matter with regard to disallowance of deduction under Section

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

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

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

3. The PCIT invoking its powers under Section 263 of the Act revised the assessment order on the premise as under:- “On perusal of records as well as per the enquiries/ investigations conducted by the Investigation Directorate of the Department during the search and post-search enquiries, many discrepancies and violations of provisions of Sections 11, 12 & 13

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

3] dated 29.12.2009 by disallowing claim of indirect expenses thereby making an addition of `9,56,65,810/-. In appeal, the 1st Appellate Authority quashed the disallowance of `7,70,72,993/- and addition was restricted to `1,85,92,817/-. For the addition sustained, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty

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

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

Section 143 (3) of Income Tax Act 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. The Tribunal decided following against the assessee:- (i) The assessee could change

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

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 the deletion

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

3) of the Act have been placed on record. The perusal of the respective years reflects mere allowance of the claim without any discussion on the issue. 9. Now coming to the issue before us, the assessee is carrying on the business of sole proprietary concern. During the course of the said carrying on of business certain amounts VIRENDRA SINGH

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MUKERIAN PAPERS LTD

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

13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.408 of 2006 (O&M) 3 second substantial question of law. 5. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from ITA No.408 of 2006 pertaining to the assessment year 1995-96. Briefly stated, the assessee company incurred an expenditure of Rs.1.65 crore on account of public issue

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

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

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 by looking at the data of previous two years without appreciating the fact that the wastage of percentage accepted

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