Tag: Punjab And Haryana High Court

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing carry forward of depreciation of asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1978-79, which could not be set off against the income of the partners of the assessee’s firm in the hands of the firm for the purposes of set off against its income in the subsequent years ?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Deepak Industries Section 32(2) Asst. Year 1978-79, 1979-80 Ashok Bhan & N.K. Agrawal, JJ. IT Ref. Nos. 19 & 20 of 1986 11th August, 1997 Counsel AppearedB.S. Gupta with Sanjay Bansal, for the Appellant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT ASHOK BHAN, J. : This order shall dispose …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Since a common point involving interpretation of ss. 62 to 68 of the Finance Act, 1997, and s. 297 r/w ss. 147 to 150 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act) arises for adjudication in these petitions, we are deciding them by one order.

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Smt. Vidya Devi vs. CIT Sections 297(2)(g), 1997FA 63, 1997FA 64, 1997FA S 68, 1997FA 69 G.S. Singhvi & Iqbal Singh, JJ. CWP No. 12395 of 1998 26th August, 1998 Counsel Appeared Sanjay Kaushal, for the Petitioner ORDER G.S. SINGHVI, J. : Since a common point involving interpretation of ss. …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The claim made by the Assessee for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 @ 100% instead of 25% for the year under consideration i.e. 8th year on account of substantial expansion to the undertaking is bonafide and does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of claim of deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c)

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Pr.CIT vs. Virgo Industries Section 80IC, 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 2011-12 Ajay Kumar Mittal & Harnaresh Singh Gill, JJ. ITA No. 242 of 2018 29th January, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the revenue This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 225 & 242 of 2018 as according …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The Tribunal erred in law in (in-effect) upholding the disallowance of Rs. 6,19,34,656/- which represented unutilized MODVAT credit of excise duty as on 31.3.1997 i.e. the end of the relevant accounting year, in terms of Section 43B of the Act

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 43B Asst. Year 1997-98 Ajay Kumar Mittal & Manjari Nehru Kaul, JJ. ITA No.403 of 2016 21st November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Rohit Jain, Vishal Gupta, Advs. for the Petitioner.: Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel …

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the appellant’s valuation of he closing stock of shares on the basis of “since realized value”?

High Court Of Madras P. Amarnath Reddy vs. DCIT Section 145 Asst. Year 2000-01 T.S. Sivagnanam & N.Sathish Kumar, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No.979 of 2008 19th November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Sree Lakshmi Valli for the Petitioner.: T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent. T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal, by the appellant/assessee under Section 260A …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether the IT AT has erred in passing the impugned order after going beyond the jurisdiction and is to that extent bad in law

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT (Exemptions) vs. Baba Amarnath Educational Society Section 254(1) Ajay Kumar Mittal, & Avneesh Jhingan, JJ. ITA No.232 of 2016 25th October, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Petitioner.: Pankaj Jain, Sr. Adv., Sachin Bhardwaj, Adv. for the Respondent. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.: The revenue has filed …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether there could be two assessment orders for one assessment year at a given point of time?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Patiala Improvement Trust vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 147, 148, 263 Asst. Year 2008-09 Ajay Kumar Mittal & Avneesh Jhingan, JJ. ITA-301-2015 (O&M) 20th October, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Sanjay Ghalawat, Rohit Sud, Advs. for the Petitioner.: Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The expenses incurred by the trust are not in consonance with the objects of the trust and without any essence of rendering services, for which it was formed

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT (Exemptions) vs. Tara Ripu Damanpal Trust Section 12AA Ajay Kumar Mittal & Avneesh Jhingan, JJ. ITA-196-2016 20th October, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Petitioner.: None for the Respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in treating the ‘copyright expense’ as a revenue expense when the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith the Income Tax Rules, explicitly mention copyrights as an intangible asset?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Pr.CIT vs. Mobisoft Telesolutions Private Limited Section 40(a)(ia) Asst. Year 2012-13 Ajay Kumar Mittal & Ayneesh Jhingan, JJ. ITA No.495 OF 2017 (O&M) 3rd October, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the Petitioner.: Radhika Suri, Sr. Adv , M.S. Kanda, Adv. for the Respondent. AYNEESH JHINGAN, J. …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh is justified in quashing the revisionary order under Section 263 made by the CIT-3, Ludhiana without appreciating the fact that all the comparison of figures made by the assessee is very much based on the figure taken from books of account duly admitted defective by the assessee himself during survey operation?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Pr.CIT vs. Venus Woollen Mills Section 263 Asst. Year 2008-09 Ajay Kumar Mittal & Avneesh Jhingan, JJ. ITA No.111 of 2015 (O&M) 27th September, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Petitioner.: Sachin Bhardwaj, Adv. for the Respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. CM No. 17890-11-2018 Allowed as …
Malcare WordPress Security