BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

1. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘IT Act’), for Assessment Year 2004-2005 is preferred against order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No.459/Chd/2011. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. Brief facts of the case, as per pleadings

RAMESH KUMAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, there being an information from the Investigation Wing about suspicious long term capital gain

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

1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

M/S MAJESTIC AUTO LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ANR

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

capital expenditure or personal, laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profit and gains of business”. The Revenue is not claiming that expenses claimed by appellant were not incurred in connection with business of the appellant. The appellant concededly incurred expenses on travelling

INDERPAL SINGH AHUJA vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER-CUM-A.C.I.T. ORS

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

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, 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- 338-2006. 2. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking

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

1,41,58,549/- by excluding the excise duty in the valuation of closing stock? (v) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in allowing the relief of Rs. 83,97,899/- by directing the AO to value the closing stock on the direct cost method as adopted

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

capital receipts whereas the expenditure on development of plot/sheds was claimed to be Rs.9.54 crores. The assessee had submitted that since it was following project completion method, therefore, excess of receipts qua expenses would be accounted for by it in subsequent years i.e. in the year of MANJU 2023.03.16 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this