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

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 of `1,26,39,400/- was imposed vide order dated 30.3.2012. The 1st Appellate Authority set aside the penalty vide order dated 31.3.2015. The appeal filed

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

13 of the Act by the Assessee trust were found. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 23.08.2018 was issued asking the assessee VARINDER SINGH 2024.09.27 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA No. 41 of 2021 -4- as to why proceedings u/s 263 of the Act should not be initiated in its case

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

9. Aggrieved of the order of cancellation, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal, the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2012. 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. -5- 10. The Trust filed appeal challenging the order

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

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

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

9. So far as the method of accounting by way of 'project MANJU 2023.03.16 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment Chandigarh Income Tax Appeal No.398 of 2009 (O&M) and other connected appeals -9- 2023:PHHC:037968-DB completion method' is concerned, the same was discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court

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

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

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 by the department varied from year to year

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

9. For the Assessment Year 2004-05, the appellant filed its return of income on 26.10.2004 showing income of Rs.1,70,99,800/-. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the appellant had claimed Rs.10,50,000/- as “amount written off unrealizable”. As per provisions of Section

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