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

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

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 by the department varied from year to year because it depended

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

2(24) read with section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that “income” includes profits and gains and the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year is taxable?” 3. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case Anuradha

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

2. Assessee is a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 engaged in the distribution of power in State of Haryana. Assessee filed return for the assessment year 2008-09 declaring nil income. Assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 23.12.2010 at nil income. Commissioner Income Tax revised the same exercising power under Section 263 of the 1961 Act. Assessment

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

2) and 142(1) dated 03.08.2006 along with detailed questionnaire were issued and served upon the appellant on 07.08.2006. Appellant filed its reply dated 28.11.2006. After considering the reply, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana, vide order dated 29.12.2006, disallowed the return of unrealized amount of Rs.10,50,000/- and added back the same to the income

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

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

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

2 expressed in CBDT's Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014, which explicitly states that expenses relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact whether any such income has been earned during F.Y. or not as confirmed by Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 91 Taxman.com 154 (SC) ? iii. Whether

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

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

2. The appeals. (i) (ii) 3. Sin Assessment Yea impugned order years is the sam and decision at r BRIEF FACTS 4. The business of man 1997-1998, the (O&M) and other connected ca HARMA, J. ese appeals pertaining to Assess have been preferred against ord e Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cha 5 for the Assessment Years 1998 e following

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

5 appeals viz., Income Tax Appeal No.398 of 2009, Income Tax Appeal No.399 of 2009, Income Tax Appeal No.292 of 2010, Income Tax Appeal No.293 of 2010 & Income Tax Appeal No.279 of 2011 is being disposed of. The questions of law involved are common in all these appeals and these appeals are with regard to assessment years

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-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

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

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

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

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

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.” Against the said order, the assessee-respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 20.07.2009, deleted the additions mentioned at Sr. Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and partially confirmed the addition of Rs.4,00,000/-, out of Rs.19,06,373/- mentioned

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

2 Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014, which explicitly states that expenses relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowances irrespective of the fact whether any such income has been earned during the F.Y. or not as confirmed by Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, 91 Taxman.com 154 (SC) ? (iii) Whether on the facts

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

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

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

2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram has preferred these appeals against the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi, whereby it has set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the PCIT’) passed under Section 263 of the Income