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

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

Section t ‘the Act, 1961’) accordingly. he case had a checkered history eedings where the assessee had CIT (Appeals) 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

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

disallowed as per the provisions of sec. 36 (1) (iii) of the I.T. Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT (A), Faridabad and the same was allowed, vide order dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure A-7). Against the order of CIT (A), the revenue- department filed the appeal before the Tribunal

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

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

1,72,537 16,376 8.66% 9. 1983-84 5,08,958 76,336 13.04% Thus, it was submitted that the A.O went on an erroneous presumption by assuming that the percentage of wastage of 13.04% is excessive just by looking at the data of previous two years without appreciating the fact that the wastage of percentage accepted

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHD vs. M/S AGRI KING TRACTORS AND EQUIPMENTS 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 Ld. Itat Is Justified In Directing The Assessing Officer To Verify The Claim Of The Assessee Having Not Earned Any Exempt Income In The Year Under Consideration & Allow The Relief Accordingly, Ignoring The Legislative Intent Anuradha 2020.01.30 16:03 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act') against the order dated 18.3.2019 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench Chandigarh, in ITA No. 1280/Chd/2018 (Annexure A-3) for A.Y. 2015- 2016 and claiming following substantial questions of law :- “i. Whether on the facts

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S PIYUSH COLONIZERS LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance of `7,70,72,993/- and addition was restricted to `1,85,92,817/-. For the addition sustained, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty of `1,26,39,400/- was imposed vide order dated 30.3.2012. The 1st Appellate Authority set aside the penalty vide order dated 31.3.2015. The appeal filed

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

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

5. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in deleting disallowance of Rs. 26,94,93,951/- made by the Assessing Officer in computing the book-profit u/s 115JB on a/c of provisions made for gratuity, leave encashment, post retirement medical benefits, LTC, Baggage allowance

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

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

Disallowed deduction beyond 80% of expenses relating to production of advertising material i.e. video film. 3. The parties approached Tribunal seeking reference on different issues to the High Court. The Tribunal and thereafter this Court considered few questions to be answered by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for assessee pointed out that issue with respect to DEEPAK BISSYAN

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

5 profit improvement programme for the appellant-Company. This agreement does not show that any industrial information is being given which will assisst in manufacturing or processing of any goods. It is a consultancy agreement and this agreement would not fall under Section 35AB of Act 1961. Now reference can be made to Section 37 of the Act 1961, which

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

5. ITR-66-1995 M/S.SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. ...Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Respondent 6. ITR-67-1995 M/S.SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. ...Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Respondent DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.01 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITR-62 to 69-1995 -2- 7. ITR-68-1995 M/S.SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER

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

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

disallowed. Thereafter notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee claiming that the benefit of Section 80-I of the Act had wrongly been extended. Ultimately the Tribunal set aside this order holding that the primary condition of Section 147 of the Act viz 'reason to believe' (as defined by a plethora of judgments

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

section 36(1)(iii) on interest free loan given to sister concerns whereas the aassessee itself in the same year, has charged interest @ 13.5% on advances given to its another concerns M/s Pharmax Corp Ltd.? (ii) Whether on the facts of the case, Ld. ITAT has erred in law ignoring the AO’s finding that the assessee company has advanced

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), (i) no allowance shall be made in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee after the 28th day of February, 1970, on the maintenance of any residential accommodation in the nature

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

5 Lacs to : Deaf & Dumb school” for the welfare of such handicap students, vide Resolution no. 81 dated 31.10.2005. (j) Land for “vridh Ashram (Rest house for senior citizens) measuring 2038 sq. yds. in Transport Nagar (Free of cost). (l) Land for “Public Health care centre” measuring 1825 sq. yds. in Kamla Nehur vide Resolution No.23, dated 03.06.2009. (m) Construction

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

disallowance can be made without appreciating the chargeability of transactions to tax by way of TCS forms in accordance with Section 206CA r.w. Rule 114A substantiating the purchases made and the genuineness thereof ? 3 . A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is in the business of retail selling

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

1 (SC) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 91 Taxmann.com 154 (SC) ? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in dismissing the Miscellaneous application of the Revenue and not deciding the merits, whereas the disallowances wa restricted by Ld. CIT (A) to the extent except income

STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA

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

Section 41(4) read with 36(1)(vii) with respect to recovery of bad debts which were written off in the earlier assessment years, however, deduction was never claimed; and (iii) Disallowance of DEEPAK BISSYAN 2025.12.22 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-200-2012 -2- unclaimed balance in Nostro-Blocked account. 3. They