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

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

iii) It is further contended by the learned Sr. counsel that the assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax on the ground that the assessee is carrying on the business of production of yarn for the last so many years and the percentage of wastage in the preceding years has consistently been more than

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

iii) of the Act and no capital outflow is to be allowed as a deduction, while computing the income in the hands of the assessee under the head income from other sources. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we find no merit in the claim of the assessee vis-à-vis of the claim

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

iii) That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 6. The appeal of the revenue was partly allowed and with respect to ground No. 1, the Tribunal set aside the orders of authorities below to work out the disallowance on reasonable basis

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

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

iii). ssee e of out rior ybe tion case man ome s in e by paid end TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.19 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-109-2025 ( from und not sak for of Wa to b wer disa

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

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

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

2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that three issues are involved namely (i) Disallowance under Section 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