Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
211
(1)
CIT, Jalandha
M/s Max Indi
(2)
CIT, Jalandha
M/s Max Indi
CORAM: H
Present M
M SANJEEV P 1.
T law and facts ITA-557-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA
I D ar
Vs. ia Ltd.
I D ar-I, Jalandhar
Vs. ia Ltd.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAG Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Advocat ***
RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) These appeals are dealt with to are involved in the same. Facts 0. NJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-557-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.07.2024
…Appellant
…Respondent ITA-696-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.07.2024
…Appellant
…Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA GMOHAN BANSAL g Counsel for the appellant(s). te for the respondent.
) ogether as common question of of the case are being taken from f m RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.22 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
ITA-557-
W as framed in p Court and the I H t r t I H S C e t n I t u i w p
B regard to al healthcare div already decid decision of th the Act, 1961 revenue dedu 08.09.2015 pa for the year pr [2] -2010 (O&M)
While admitting this appeal on 1 para No.5 of the appeal were pr same read as follows:- I. Whether on the facts and in th Hon’ble ITAT is right in law in he Income Tax Act, 1961, when rightly been held erroneous so fa he revenue by the learned Comm II. Whether on the facts and in th Hon’ble ITAT is right in law in q Section 263 of the Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax, expenses made towards the healt o the business of the assessee b no connection with existing busin 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 in setting aside the ord 1 and allowing expenses made uction, the same was affirmed b assed in ITA-426-2010 for the rior to the year in question i.e. A 19.09.2010, the questions of law roposed for adjudication by this he circumstances of the case, the n quashing the order U/s 263 of n the order passed by the AO has ar as prejudicial to the interest of missioner of the Income Tax? he circumstances of the case, the quashing the order passed under x Act, 1961, when the learned , specifically pointed out that th care business were not related eing a new business and having ness? n the circumstances of the case, w in quashing the order passed missioner of Income Tax on the t of non-compete fee when there ssessee company to make such m that the question of law with expenditures for extension of and as revenue deduction stands ion of this Court. So far as the der passed under Section 265 of towards healthcare business as by this Court in its order dated assessment year 1999-2000 i.e. AY 2000-2001.
w s e f s f e r d t d g , d e e h h f s e f s d . RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.22 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
ITA-557-
A disallowing p same was exa 2004 and to and were dele assessment y albeit on acco 2013 again h deduction vid 5.
H issue for asse this Court ha assessee as no 6.
I view and the of law are ac the expenditu is upheld and 7.
N 8.
16.07.2024. rajesh 1. Whe 2. Whe [3] -2010 (O&M)
As regards order passed under payment of non-compete fee paid amined for the succeeding asses other individuals in assessment eted by the ITAT and the appe year 2001-2002 was dismissed ount of loan tax effect. The Hig held the demand of non-compet de judgment dated 06.08.2018. Having noticed the aforesaid fact ssment year 2000-2001 has to b s consistently reached to the sa oticed hereinabove. In view of the above, we do not appeals are, therefore, found to cordingly answered in favour o ure was allowable revenue deduc the appeals are accordingly dism No costs. All pending misc. application(s)
(SANJ
ether speaking/reasoned? : ether reportable?
: Section 263 of the Act, 1961, d to Mr. Ashwani Windlass, the ssment year 2001-2002 to 2003- t year 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 eal preferred by the revenue for by this Court on 10.09.2018, gh Court in ITA-193 and 195 of te fee to be allowable revenue ts, we are satisfied that the same be also decided by this Court, as ame conclusion in favour of the find any reason to take different be without merits and questions of the assessee and we hold that ction. The decision of the ITAT missed. also stand disposed of.
JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE
Yes/No
Yes/No
, e - 7 r , f e e s e t s t T RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.22 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.