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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. Sh. Ashok Kumar Goyal & Sh. Satish Kumar Goyal, Chartered Accountants, counsels for the assesssee furnished Power of Attorney duly signed by the assessee and accepted by them and attended the assessment MANOJ KUMAR 2020.02.20 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity

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

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

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

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

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