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

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

4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that Sukhvinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh deposited Rs.10,00,000/- in appellant’s account towards Byana/Earnest Money. It was 25% of total sale consideration which is evident from cross-examination of Sarkaria Brothers. The respondent has further relied upon sale consideration of plotted colony against agriculture land of the appellant. The Authorities

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

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

4. The business of man 1997-1998, the (O&M) and other connected ca HARMA, J. ese appeals pertaining to Assess have been preferred against ord e Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cha 5 for the Assessment Years 1998 e following substantial questions Whether in fact and circumst authorities below not to con purchase and of sale outsid activities of a business

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

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

4 Supreme Court Cases 232; Calcutta Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 1165; Rakesh Shantilal Mardia v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 254 CTR 0338; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Unique Mercantile Service (P) Ltd., (2015) 122 DTR Judgments 277; Snesh Resort Pvt. Ltd. v. DY.C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.113 of 2004 decided

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

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

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Section 35D of 1961 Act, if a new unit is set up, assessee is entitled to deduction of pre-setting up expenses. The appellant could not materialize its new project. It could not be denied benefit of deduction on the ground that project actually did not come into picture

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

4 Mckinsey and Company Ltd for professional serviced rendered by it., learned senior counsel has shown agreement dated 10.11.1995 between M/s Mckinsey and Company and M/s Rockman Cycle Industries which shows that the company was to assist in developing a growth strategy and profit improvement programme for the appellant-Company. M/s Mckinsey and Company has also to render service which