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

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

143(1) of the Act on 28.03.2008. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Hawai Chappals. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had invested a sum of Rs.3,66,684,014/- over the years in the shares of Lakhani India Ltd. from which the dividend income was not taxable

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S NHPC LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

143(3) (and not under section 115JB) on account of “Advance Against Depreciation” ignoring the provisions of section 2(24) read with section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that “income” includes profits and gains and the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SWARAJ ENGINES LTD MOHALI

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

disallowed. Thereafter notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee claiming that the benefit of Section 80-I of the Act had wrongly been extended. Ultimately the Tribunal set aside this order holding that the primary condition of Section 147 of the Act viz 'reason to believe' (as defined by a plethora of judgments

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

disallowed the return of unrealized amount of Rs.10,50,000/- and added back the same to the income of the appellant and penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of account. The appellant filed appeal against order dated 29.12.2006 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana, who vide

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

143(3)/263 of the 1961 Act whereby certain deductions were disallowed and added back. 3. Aggrieved by the order, assessee approached CIT (Appeals). The appellate authority deleted 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

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

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

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 method

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ROHTAK vs. M/S CRYSTAL PHOSPHATES LTD

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

ii) Whether Hon’ble ITAT, New Delhi was right in law in quashing the notice as well as assessment made as the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 was framed by making disallowance of Rs.5,60,207/- and the appeal of the assessee was pending before CIT (A) and as per the CBDT instructions contained in Scrutiny Guidelines

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

1) (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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S SUPERTECH FORGINGS PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowed the entire purchases amounting to Rs.4,26,93,470/- holding as unverifiable purchases from the following parties:- Sr. No. Name of the concern Amount of purchases 1. Madan Lal Pahuja M/s. Shiv bholeKirpa Trade, Shivpuri, Ludhiana 1.05 Cr 2. Lovy Steel and Allied Industries, Sector 3, Gobindgarh 0.17 Cr 3. Jatinder Kumar Shree Nath Ispat Udhyog, Gobindgar

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

143 (3) of Income Tax Act DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.01 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITR-62 to 69-1995 -3- 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

BALJINDER SINGH SALANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

1. The present order shall dispose of ITA-341-2018 filed by the assessee which is directed against the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh Bench bearing ITA No. 1058/Chd./2014 for the assessment year 2009-10 (Annexure A-3). The second appeal bearing ITA-297-2018 is directed against the dismissal