BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

capital gains and income from other sources. Under the head ‘income from other sources’, in addition to bank interest, FDRs, interest on unsecured loans was shown against which, the appellant VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.07.07 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-385-2014 (O&M) -2- claimed Rs.10,50,000/- as “amount written

RAMESH KUMAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

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

Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, there being an information from the Investigation Wing about suspicious long term capital gain on shares, the case was selected for scrutiny. Notice along with questionnaire was issued, information/documents and evidence were taken on record and order dated 24.2.2016 was passed. It would be relevant to produce the assessment order in toto: “Return

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 MAJESTIC AUTO LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ANR

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

3. The appellant claimed another deduction of Rs.11,31,773/- with respect to warranty claims. The appellant is engaged in the business of automobile parts where warranty expenses are always likely to incur. The Assessing Authority denied deduction of said amount. The Tribunal also upheld opinion of Assessing Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Section

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

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

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

1,41,58,549/- by excluding the excise duty in the valuation of closing stock? (v) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in allowing the relief of Rs. 83,97,899/- by directing the AO to value the closing stock on the direct cost method as adopted