BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

Section 143(2) and 142(1) dated 03.08.2006 along with detailed questionnaire were issued and served upon the appellant on 07.08.2006. Appellant filed its reply dated 28.11.2006. After considering the reply, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana, vide order dated 29.12.2006, disallowed

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

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

2. The brief facts are that assessee had claimed the deduction under Section 80-I of the Act in the year 1997-1998. In the final assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the issue of this deduction was gone into detail by the A.O and a portion of it was disallowed

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

2. Assessee is a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 engaged in the distribution of power in State of Haryana. Assessee filed return for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring nil income. Assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 23.12.2010 at nil income. Commissioner Income Tax revised the same exercising power under Section 263 of the 1961 Act. Assessment

BALJINDER SINGH SALANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

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

disallowance of expenses on account of wages paid to labour and without any material on record against the assessee? (iii) Whether the ITAT has erred in applying the provision of section-44AD for calculating the net profit ratio at 8% of the gross receipt which was treated as income of the assesse? (iv) Whether net profit ratio of earlier years

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

2 (for short 'Act 1961') challenging order dated 27.05.2011 and order dated 20.04.2012 in M.A No.292/Del/2011 arising out of ITA No. 998/DEL/2011 dated 27.05.2011, whereby the appeal filed by the revenue-department was partly allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company filed return of income declaring income of Rs.81,63,354/- on 07.06.2007, which

LALIT SINGLA R/O SARAI ALBEL SINGH OUTSIDE LAHORI GATE PATIALA PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX PATIALA PUNJAB

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI

2 case, in accordance with the provisions of Section 40A(3) the disallowance can be made without appreciating the chargeability of transactions to tax by way of TCS forms in accordance with Section 206CA r.w. Rule 114A substantiating the purchases made and the genuineness thereof ? 3 . A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein

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

Section 143 (2) was issued on 07.10.2004. After seeking relevant details and information from the respondent, its assessment for the concerned year was finalized. It was observed that the assessee had treated the money received by sale of plots/sheds as capital receipt and had not accounted for the closing stock of plots/sheds due to which revenue on these accounts

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

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

Section 143 (2) of the Act as well as the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the AJAY PRASHER 2023.04.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.140 of 2013 (O&M) -4- appeal filed by the revenue-department was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. Vide order dated 25.03.2014 passed

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

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

Section 1 asked under S disallowance on purchase of sha sold 32,650 shar 2006 as well. CONCLUSION 32. In appellant had in Vardhman Poly Vardhman Poly (O&M) and other connected ca de impugned order dated 31.07.2 Assessing Officer for the lim n account of interest paid on bor Vardhman Polytex Ltd. During parties were asked about

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LIMITED

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

2] (O&M) and connected cases. The appellant has assailed the or Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chand eferred to as ‘the ITAT’), wher compute book profit after a ncurred by the assessee compan -12 respectively and compute th Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Learned counsel submits that th econd round of appellate proce matter against the order of C nder

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD LUDHIANA vs. M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD

Bench: Cit(A). The Same Was Partly Allowed. The Addition Made By Applying Net Profit Dinesh Kumar 2022.10.16 16:54 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

143(3) of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). The same was partly allowed. The addition made by applying net profit DINESH KUMAR 2022.10.16 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-61-2021 (O&M) 2 rate of 12% on the total gross receipt was reduced

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

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 Bahri, J. This judgment shall dispose of the above mentioned five appeals together, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, for facility of reference

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

2. The respondent-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of ACSR Conductors (Aluminium conductor steel reinforce), DPC Wire Strips (double paper covered wire), steels wire ropes, PVC cables and besides trading of M.S. Pipes, aluminium wire and allied products. The assessment had been framed u/s 143(3) on 12.06.2012 and the trading results were accepted by the department

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

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

2. The petitioner-M/s Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. (for short ‘assessee’) is engaged in the business of manufacture of consumer products. The assessee is selling its products inside as well as outside India. It filed Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1985-86. The Assessing Officer (for short ‘AO’) selected returns of the assessee and framed

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