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 n e ) o e d

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, 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 B of the Act, 1961. d

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

4. The Assessing Officer further observed that the partner had not withdrawn his own funds but the business funds which bear interest cost. Prevailing bank rate of interest at the relevant time was 12% per annum. The total interest pertaining to the funds advanced to the partners (Smt. Suman Lakhani & Smt. Kamlesh Lakhani) on account of their debit balance

CIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S MAX INDIA LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 265 of towards healthcare business as by this Court in its order dated assessment year 1999-2000 i.e. AY 2000-2001. w s e f s f e r d t d g , d e e h h f s e f s d . RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.22 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: It Should Be Reinstated & Decided On Merits ? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Itat Is Justified In Dismissing The Miscellaneous Application Of The Revenue Without Discussing The Merits Ignoring The Legislative Intent Expressed In Cbdt'S Anuradha 2020.02.12 17:37 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

disallowances u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income, when Supreme Court has upheld the principles of apportionment and department is in SLP on the same issue in the cases of Moderate Leasing and Capital Services Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 102 of 2018, A.Y. 2009-10 and Matrix Cellular Services (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 484 of 20174 and Nilgiri Infrastructure

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

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

D read with clause (i) of sub-section 24 of section 2 of the Income Tax Act?” 2. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.131,75,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) (and not under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ROHTAK vs. M/S CRYSTAL PHOSPHATES LTD

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

4 and 5 and partially confirmed the addition of Rs.4,00,000/-, out of Rs.19,06,373/- mentioned at Sr. No.6, Rs.42,530/- out of Rs.1,08,733/- mentioned at Sr. No.7 and Rs.25 lakhs out of Rs.2,00,00,000/- mentioned at Sr. No.10. The CIT (A) had further enhanced the addition of Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.5

M/S MAJESTIC AUTO LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ANR

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

disallowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 1997-98. The appellant is engaged in the business of automobile parts. With intent to expand its business outside the country, it incurred travelling and staff expenses outside the country during 1995-96 and 1996-97. The appellant attempted to set up a unit in China. The project could not be materialized

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

d) “Community Hall” measuring 2000 sq. Yds. To be erected & built in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Gurukul Nagar, Gurukul Road, Bathinda, Vide Resolution No. 75 dated 30.09.2008 (free of cost). (e) The Trust is to provide “Service Lane” 16 wide with parking and footpath”. The amount to be spent is Rs. One Crore Vide Resolution No. 48 dated 26.08.2008 (free

(O&M) M/S KULDIP SOOD ENTERPRISES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

The appeal stands dismissed

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 999/Chandi/1993 for A.Y. 1988-89 claiming the following questions of law:- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, order Annexure

M/S INDUSTRIAL CABLES (INDIA) LTD., RAJP vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA & OR

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

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No.487/Chandi/1992 for the assessment year 1990-1991 disallowing the credit of Rs.89,854/- to the sister concerns on the specific ground that the advances given to the sisters concerns were not proved to be relating

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

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

disallowed few expenses as well as assessed closing stock at the value different from value declared by assessee. The matter reached Tribunal through First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal partially allowed appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal decided following questions against the assessee:- (i) The assessee could change method of determination of value of closing stock, however, ordered