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

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

80,346/- 2005-06 10,13,765/- 2006-07 36,39,146/- 2007-08 10,97,950/- 21. The entire emphasis of the revenue is on the fact that the assessee-Trust had earned profits by selling plots. This itself cannot be a ground for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act, especially when it is not disputed

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

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

Section 143 (3) of Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, “1961 Act”). The AO 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 against the assessee:- (i) The assessee could change

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

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

Section 80-G. (10) The assessee-company had claimed total expenses of Rs.1,97,72,54,772/- under different heads in the P & L Account. No details were furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of these expenses. Moreover, the expenses under various heads were allowable only when TDS was deducted and deposited in the Government account. Since

CIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD.

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

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80-IB of the 1961 Act, in as much as the machineries had been installed in the same existing factory premises, which were in the nature of routine replacements with better capacity? ii. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in treating the expenditure incurred

C I T vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE 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 21.09.2007 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 the ITAT was right

CIT CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER

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

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80-I of the 1961 Act, in as much as the machineries had been installed in the same existing factory premises, as no mention of expansion of the existing factory in the annual report of the company was there and or any separate accounts & other details relating to unit for which deduction u/s 80

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

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

disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80-I of the 1961 Act, in as much as the machineries had been installed in the same existing factory premises, as no mention of expansion of the existing factory in the annual report of the company was there and or any separate accounts & other details relating to unit for which deduction u/s 80

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

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

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

80,264 13.71% 6. 1980-81 4,33,375 65,663 13.16% 7. 1981-82 6,69,732 66,855 9.08% 8. 1982-83 (3 months) 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

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