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

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

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

capital gain and consequential tax liability. The appellant preferred appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2005 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He preferred further appeal before Tribunal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2006. The Tribunal assessed sale consideration Rs.22,10,000/- per acre. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that

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

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

4. The business of man 1997-1998, the (O&M) and other connected ca HARMA, J. ese appeals pertaining to Assess have been preferred against ord e Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cha 5 for the Assessment Years 1998 e following substantial questions Whether in fact and circumst authorities below not to con purchase and of sale outsid activities of a business

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

4. Question No.1:- 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 'ENO' and 'Fruit Salt' as revenue receipts as against the assessee

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

4 Supreme Court Cases 232; Calcutta Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 1165; Rakesh Shantilal Mardia v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 254 CTR 0338; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Unique Mercantile Service (P) Ltd., (2015) 122 DTR Judgments 277; Snesh Resort Pvt. Ltd. v. DY.C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.113 of 2004 decided

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

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

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Section 35D of 1961 Act, if a new unit is set up, assessee is entitled to deduction of pre-setting up expenses. The appellant could not materialize its new project. It could not be denied benefit of deduction on the ground that project actually did not come into picture

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

4 Mckinsey and Company Ltd for professional serviced rendered by it., learned senior counsel has shown agreement dated 10.11.1995 between M/s Mckinsey and Company and M/s Rockman Cycle Industries which shows that the company was to assist in developing a growth strategy and profit improvement programme for the appellant-Company. M/s Mckinsey and Company has also to render service which