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

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

7. Hen SUBMISSIONS 8. Lea appellant to car amendment in th their meeting da stock-in-trade an learned Assessin the appellant ha (O&M) and other connected ca sessing Officer while framing as 99-2000 and 2000-2001 vid 28.02.2003 respectively, for the entire business loss on account o vesting in the shares of M/s V rchase of shares

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

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

7. As per Section 35D of 1961 Act, where an assessee being an Indian company incurs any expenditure after the commencement of his business, in connection with the expansion of his undertaking or in connection with setting up his new business, he is entitled to deduction of those expenses in 10 installments. Section 35D as applicable during the period

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 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

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an 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

7. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length and have given due deliberations to the contentions raised by them. The respondent-assessee company is admittedly engaged in the business of development and sale of industrial plots and sheds. During the assessment year 2003-04, it had admittedly received an amount of Rs.12.40 crores. The said