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

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

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

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

3)From the Balance sheet we find that there is always Loss. 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. -10- Asstt. Year Loss as per Audited

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

section 14A of the Act 1961. Similarly, the Assessing Officer disallowed interest of Rs. 3,25,674/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act pertaining

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

3 6. While dealing with the issue of addition of unexplained expenditure, ITAT held that the issue is no more res integra and has been adjudicated upon by the Allahabad High Court in 'CIT vs. Banwari Lal Banshidhar' holding that:- “When the gross profit rate was applied, that would take care of everything and there was no need

INDUSTRIAL CABLES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

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

disallowed by Tribunal relying upon Section 37(4) of 1961 Act. Section 37(4) reads as:- “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3

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

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

Section 40A(3) the disallowance can be made without appreciating the chargeability of transactions to tax by way of TCS forms

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA vs. M/S. GENEX INDUSTRIES LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

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

3] (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2016 (381) ITR 107. Learned counsel for the revenue is not in a position to dispute that the matter with regard to disallowance of deduction under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHD vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD.

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

disallowance u/s 80IC was allowed. was right in law in accepting ning part of expenditure relating 1,93,15,643/-, Depreciation of nditure on R&D u/s 35(2) of revenue expenses on scientific 36,344/- to the Baddi Unit or ion u/s 80IC, when the assessee

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

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, the Assessing Officer, after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, issued notice to the assessee under

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

disallow such expenditure. The object and purpose of POOJA SAINI 2023.02.28 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment ITA-843-2008 (O&M) -2- the proviso is to ensure that the retrospective amendment is not made as a weapon to reopen past settled cases which have attained finality. In the above said judgments

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

disallow such expenditure. The object and purpose of POOJA SAINI 2023.02.28 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment ITA-846-2008 (O&M) -2- the proviso is to ensure that the retrospective amendment is not made as a weapon to reopen past settled cases which have attained finality. In the above said judgments

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

Section 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

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

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

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

3. L and it is a se taken up the application un powers under ought to have already filed under the hea merely becau affirmed by t revenue, the a 1961 on acco High Court re 4. W counsel and e there is any s in the present [2] (O&M) and connected cases. The appellant has assailed

STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed by way of remand to Tribunal which would pass fresh

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

disallowance under Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) on the securities held in stock. This issue stands settled by this Court in “Principle CIT Vs. State of Patiala”, (2017) 391 ITR 218 (P&H). The judgment of this Court stands affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income

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

3 deducted under Section 37 of Act 1961 on account of expenditure of Rs.61,38,000/- paid to M/s Mckinsey and Company Ltd for professional serviced rendered by it. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed