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

disallow the exemption. 15. We have considered the submissions. Discussion 16. Section 2 (15) of the Act defines charitable purpose. The word ‘charitable purpose’ and ‘legislative changes’ have been discussed at length VARINDER SINGH 2024.12.05 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA No. 271 of 2014 -10- by the Larger Bench of the Supreme

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

30 to 43D of the Act. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed

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

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

30 (Asr) 2011 dated 14.06.2012. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the activities of the assessee-Trust are for charitable purpose and the matter is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in similar cases of Trusts, in the case of Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Improvement Trust, Moga reported

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

30,000/- as contribution to Udyog Sahayak which was a body constituted to facilitate the promotion of industries and the contributions made to the fund which were utilized for purchase of capital items, renovation, furnishing etc. of office bearers of the Committee. Those expenses not being revenue expenses were disallowed. The income of the respondent-assessee was re-computed

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

30-9-2014 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 2618/Del/2008 for Assessment Year 2005- 2006, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- 1. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right

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

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

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

30,619 73,532 14.58% 3. 1977-78 3,71,193 72,971 16.43% 4. 1978-79 3,99,809 72,280 15.31% 5. 1979-80 5,05,279 80,264 13.71% 6. 1980-81 4,33,375 65,663 13.16% 7. 1981-82 6,69,732 66,855 9.08% 8. 1982-83 (3 months

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.(NOW GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.)

Appeal stands disposed of

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is seeking setting aside of order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in permitting the change in method of accounting