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

3,25,674/ pertaining to the debit balances of the partners was disallowed as per the provisions of sec. 36 (1) (iii) of the I.T. Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT (A), Faridabad and the same was allowed, vide order dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure A-7). Against the order

C I T vs. M/S PUNAJB STATE WAREHOUSING CORP.

Appeal is allowed, impugned order dated

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

14-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), was inserted in Chapter IV of the Act by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962 was considered. As per the abovesaid provision, an assessing officer cannot open the assessment under Section 147 of the Act for any assessment year prior to assessment year

C I T vs. M/S PUNAJB STATE WAREHOUSING CORP.

Appeal is allowed, impugned order dated

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

14-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), was inserted in Chapter IV of the Act by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962 was considered. As per the abovesaid provision, an assessing officer cannot open the assessment under Section 147 of the Act for any assessment year prior to assessment year

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

14 plots measuring 1512 sq. ydds. valuing Rs. 45.2 lacs and 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. -9- construction cost rs. 64.86 lakhs vide Resolution No.56 dated 31.08.2006 and were handed over to the poor (free of cost

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

STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

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

14(A) on the securities held in stock; (ii) Applicability of Section 41(4) read with 36(1)(vii) with respect to recovery of bad debts which were written off in the earlier assessment years, however, deduction was never claimed; and (iii) Disallowance of DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.22 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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

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

disallowing the rate of wastage, which is simply based on personal whims of the A.O. It was further submitted that the G.P. rate for the year under consideration is 24.92% which is highest from A.Y. 1975-76 onwards and once the assessee itself has come with the highest rate of G.P., no justification can be given to pin point

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

14:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/document P&H HC, Chandigarh ITA Nos. 244, 281, 282, 283 & 630 of 2005 2023:PHHC:056092-DB 2 Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate & Mr. Nishant Mishra, Advocate for the appellant (s). Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Standing counsel for the respondent-department. *** Ritu

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

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

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

disallowed. Huge salary being paid to the trustees by MMU Trust is not genuine. Interest paid to MMU Trust has been held by the PCIT as diverting of income. Rent paid to individuals by MMU Trust has been held to be not genuine. Admitting the Indian students in NRI quota without NRI status of any families held to be wrongful