VIJAY SEHGAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II JALANDHAR

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

1,01,01,000/- i.e consideration received in cash as well as by cheque." 2. The AO directed to recalculate the income of the block period in accordance with the directions as above. The AO passed an order making additions relating to the sale of shares in May 1995 as part of the block period and declared the capital gain

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

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

sections 30 to 36and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts

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

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

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

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

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from ITA- 338-2006. 2. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking

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