BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

Section 36(2)(i), it has been specifically mentioned that bad debt can be allowed if the “written off” amount which was already shown in any previous year. Further, this bad debt was a loan given by the appellant not engaged in money lending business, which was never reflected as part of the income of the appellant. Therefore, despite being

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

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

disallowing the rate of wastage, which is simply based on personal whims of the A.O. It was further submitted that the G.P. rate for the year under consideration is 24.92% which is highest from A.Y. 1975-76 onwards and once the assessee itself has come with the highest rate of G.P., no justification can be given to pin point

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

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

2 and Haryana high Court held t ody/authority must pass a reason cation of mind by the concern d before it. It was further held t ns and communication thereof is procedure. Their Lordships furt ctively exercise their power only ains reasons. Any order which stice. In this case, the CIT (A) ricting the disallowance to 15% we cannot

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

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

2] law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in confirming the decision of the CIT (A) without examining that the transaction was without any business consideration or commercial expediency and therefore, the interest claimed on borrowed funds was not allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iii) Whether the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 passed by ITAT

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

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) [***] (2B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no allowance shall be made in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee on advertisement in any souvenir, brochure, tract, pamphlet or the like published by a political party. The agreement dated 10.11.1995 (A-1) falls under Section 37 of Act 1961. Moreover, as per Section 35AB

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S MAX INDIA LTD

Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

2. The substantial questions of law which are sought to be raised in the present case read as under: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT has erred in holding that no interest payment is disallowable under section 36

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

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

2. Three issues are involved in these appeals. First issue relates to 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

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

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