BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

5.. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. 6. This Court, vide order dated 15.12.2015, admitted the present appeal for determination of following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether under the facts & circumstances of the case, the action for rejecting the claim for allowance of bad debts under Section

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

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

5. In v trading in share (O&M) and other connected ca and articles of association also, ctivity. On 13.03.1997, the mem Object No.28 in the memorandum To deal, invest in and acquire an shares, debentures, debenture-s curities issued or guaranteed by ate, Dominions, Sovereigns, Mun dies and shares, stocks, debentu d securities issued and guarant m or person

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

capital receipts particularly when the assessee was not owner of the patents but was only user on account of agreement with the owner? 5. The appellant is claiming that receipt of compensation of Rs.4.5 crore by respondent on account of denial of use of brands ‘ENO’ and ‘Fruit DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.05 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity

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

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

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that appellant could claim deduction in the year in which expenses were incurred. Pre-incorporation expenses are revenue expenses and can be claimed in the year in which incurred. The appellant did not claim deduction during 1995- 96 and 1996-97, thus, deduction was not permissible in 1997-98. With respect

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

5 profit improvement programme for the appellant-Company. This agreement does not show that any industrial information is being given which will assisst in manufacturing or processing of any goods. It is a consultancy agreement and this agreement would not fall under Section 35AB of Act 1961. Now reference can be made to Section 37 of the Act 1961, which

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

5. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondent- assessee submitted that the impugned order called for no interference. The CIT (A) while exercising powers of revision had taken the view that the assessee had rightly followed the project completion method. This view could not be treated as erroneous or pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. He further