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

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

143 (1) (a) of Act 1961, vide order dated 21.03.1997. The appellant-Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of cycles. During the relevant assessment year (96-97), the appellant-company claimed deduction on account of travelling expenditure incurred on the director's wife accompanying their husbands on business tours, to the tune of Rs.1,56,076/-. The appellant-company

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

143 (3) of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh (for short “CIT (A)”) who vide order dated 09.11.2006, allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the disallowances so made. It was now the turn of the revenue to feel aggrieved by the order of CIT (A) who filed appeal before the Tribunal challenging the deletion