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

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent reiterated findings of authorities as well as Tribunal. She further submitted that Airport was declared prior to sale of land in question, thus, there was boom in the value of adjoining property. The land in question was abutting the road, thus, its value in view of changed circumstances could not be less

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

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

5. In v trading in share (O&M) and other connected ca and articles of association also, ctivity. On 13.03.1997, the mem Object No.28 in the memorandum To deal, invest in and acquire an shares, debentures, debenture-s curities issued or guaranteed by ate, Dominions, Sovereigns, Mun dies and shares, stocks, debentu d securities issued and guarant m or person

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

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that appellant could claim deduction in the year in which expenses were incurred. Pre-incorporation expenses are revenue expenses and can be claimed in the year in which incurred. The appellant did not claim deduction during 1995- 96 and 1996-97, thus, deduction was not permissible in 1997-98. With respect

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

5 profit improvement programme for the appellant-Company. This agreement does not show that any industrial information is being given which will assisst in manufacturing or processing of any goods. It is a consultancy agreement and this agreement would not fall under Section 35AB of Act 1961. Now reference can be made to Section 37 of the Act 1961, which

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

5. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondent- assessee submitted that the impugned order called for no interference. The CIT (A) while exercising powers of revision had taken the view that the assessee had rightly followed the project completion method. This view could not be treated as erroneous or pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. He further