M/S KWALITY CAFE & RESTAURANT P LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

Appeal is dismissed

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the order dated 07.04.2006 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, whereby appeal filed by the revenue-respondent against the order dated 22.03.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, has been partly accepted. Brief facts of the case are that

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

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

Section 260A can examine question of jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to enhance declared sale consideration. Having held that Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to enhance declared sale consideration for the purpose of assessment of capital gain, the question remains whether there was some evidence to reject declared value. The appellant is claiming that there was no concrete evidence to reject declared

M/S PANCHSHEEL TEXTILE MANFAC. & TRAD. vs. C I T AND ANR.

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

11. The whether the sha M/s Vardhman (O&M) and other connected ca at the appellant had purchased th he intention of trading in such s t entitled to deduction on acco cquisition of such shares. further contended that the Ass e shares of other companies by h meant for trading and of M/ herefore, he prayed that present

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

11,94,97,875/- on account of balance of excise duty lying in PLA and RG23 as the payment was made before incurring the liability to pay such levy? 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that questions No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 stand answered by this Court or by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Questions No.4

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

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

gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made

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