RAMESH KUMAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

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

2] The relevant facts are that return filed for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring income of `16,36,340/- was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, there being an information from the Investigation Wing about suspicious long term capital gain

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

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

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

2). The appellant concededly incurred expenses with respected to feasibility of project. The expenses were incurred by way of travelling and staff salary. Those expenses directly related to expansion of undertaking as well as setting up of a new unit. Besides Section 35D, Section 37 provides that any expenditure, not in the nature of capital expenditure or personal, laid

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

2. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 22.02.2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (for short ‘ITAT’) for Assessment Year 2002-03. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.24 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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 the business for that previous year, and the balance amount shall be deducted in equal instalments for each of the five immediately succeeding previous years. (2) xxxxx (3) xxxxx.” Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," know- how" means any industrial information or technique likely to assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or in the working

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

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

capital borrowe Ltd by the Asse be set aside bein ANALYSIS OF 28. A p that the learned appellant was no the previous yea (O&M) and other connected ca e fact that even the shares of M any pledge were not sold duri of it. asoning given by the Assessin r Section

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

2. The appellant has raised following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 4.5 cr. made on account of treating the compensation received by the assessee on account of termination of trademark