M/S PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, GARHA ROAD , JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR AND ANR

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

disallowed to get benefit of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). ITA No. 33 of 2022 has been filed by the assessee arising out of order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the ITAT dismissing its ITA No.1426/Chd/2018 for the assessment year 2015-2016, upholding the order of the CIT (A) declaring the assessee not entitled

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

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 is taxable?” 3. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case Anuradha 2019.09.25 11:40 I attest to the accuracy

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD

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

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 11,94,97,875/- on account of balance of excise duty lying in PLA and RG23 as the payment was made before incurring the liability to pay such levy? 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that questions No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 stand answered by this Court

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

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

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

28,414/- made by the A.O by observing that this addition was made merely on conjectures and surmises and as such could not be justified. Thus, CIT(A) rightly observed that without pointing out any error in books of accounts or method of accounting and without resorting to proviso to Section 145 of the IT Act, the said addition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I LUDHIANA vs. M/S VERDHMAN TEXTILES LTD. LUDHIANA

Appeal is dismissed

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

28,61,170/-. Later on, the assessee filed its revised return on 25.03.2009 declaring income of Rs.1,37,10,52,040/-. Assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act was completed vide order dated AJAY PRASHER 2023.04.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA No.315 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 30.12.2009. However