M/S PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, GARHA ROAD , JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR AND ANR

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

6. The ITAT examined the order passed by the CIT dated 04.06.2013 and noticed that the Society has undertaken to construct and develop Government Hospitals, Medical Universities and Colleges as per its objects at various places in the State of Punjab. The commencement and functioning of the hospital was with effect from 04.06.2010 and RPF document was also prepared

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

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

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

iii) It is further contended by the learned Sr. counsel that the assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax on the ground that the assessee is carrying on the business of production of yarn for the last so many years and the percentage of wastage in the preceding years has consistently been more than

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

iii)On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) and the Ld. ITAT have erred on facts and in the law in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act disregarding the facts that the penalty is leviable on contravention of the provisions of a civil statute

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

III) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 2618/Del/2008 for Assessment Year 2005- 2006, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- 1. “Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in dismissing appeal

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

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

6. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal in both the appeals are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh keeping in view the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act inserted w.e.f April 1, 2009 with reference to the provisions of the 1922 Act after affording an opportunity

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

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

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

iii) Inclusion of Excise duty in the closing stock; and (iv) 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

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

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 HEALTHCARE LTD. ...Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...Respondent 8. ITR-69-1995 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

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

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, 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

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

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

6) The assessee has diverted its borrowed funds to non- interest bearing advances to the tune of Rs.1,58,86,441/-. As such interest of Rs.19,06,373/- worked out @12% on interest free advances was disallowed. (7) The assessee had debited expenses on account of charity and donation of Rs.66,203/- and gift expenses of Rs.42,530/-, totaling

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMERS, PATIALA

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

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from ITA- 645-2008. 2. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S SUPERTECH FORGINGS PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

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

disallowed the entire purchases amounting to Rs.4,26,93,470/- holding as unverifiable purchases from the following parties:- Sr. No. Name of the concern Amount of purchases 1. Madan Lal Pahuja M/s. Shiv bholeKirpa Trade, Shivpuri, Ludhiana 1.05 Cr 2. Lovy Steel and Allied Industries, Sector 3, Gobindgarh 0.17 Cr 3. Jatinder Kumar Shree Nath Ispat Udhyog, Gobindgar

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

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

III. Whether on the facts and in he Hon’ble ITAT is right in law under Section 263 by the Comm ssue of disallowance of payment was no business need of the as payment? Both the counsels are at ad-idem llowability of pre-operative e vision and non-compete fee dem ded and concluded by the decisi he ITAT