RAMESH KUMAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

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

capital gain of `10,99,599/-, claimed by the assessee as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee took a stand before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short, 'PCIT') that the Assessing Officer had conducted the enquiries and passed the assessment order, therefore invoking of Section MANOJ KUMAR 2020.02.20 11:07 I attest

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

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 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

2. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 22.02.2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (for short ‘ITAT’) for Assessment Year 2002-03. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.24 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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

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

2. The appeals. (i) (ii) 3. Sin Assessment Yea impugned order years is the sam and decision at r BRIEF FACTS 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

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