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

41,072/-as on 31.03.2006 relying upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The Assessing Officer had observed that the withdrawals by the partners were out of the sale proceeds received by the assessee concern and not out of the borrowings

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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) GURUGRAM vs. M/S MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR UNIVERSITY TRUST

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

41 of 2021 -4- as to why proceedings u/s 263 of the Act should not be initiated in its case. 4. In his order passed under Section 263 of the Act, the PCIT nowhere mentioned any error committed by the Assessing Officer and relies on the investigation report which was considered at length by the assessing officer. Various points highlighted

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 05.04.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘ITAT’). 2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case