PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LIMITED

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

disallowing the 1961. It is submitted that the 1, are limited and the assessee correction in the original return ducted in the books of account Learned counsel submits that he Karnataka High Court was y dismissal of the LPA of the application U/s 154 of the Act, law as taken by the Karnataka

BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

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

disallowed the return of unrealized amount of Rs.10,50,000/- and added back the same to the income of the appellant and penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of account. The appellant filed appeal against order dated 29.12.2006 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana, who vide

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

35 AB of Act 1961 and the relevant portion of Section 35AB is extracted below: “35AB. Expenditure on know-how.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), where the assessee has paid in any previous year any lump sum consideration for acquiring any know- how for use for the purposes of his business, one-sixth of the amount

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JALANDHAR vs. M/S MAX INDIA LTD

Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine

Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

section 36(1)(iii) on interest free loan given to sister concerns whereas the aassessee itself in the same year, has charged interest @ 13.5% on advances given to its another concerns M/s Pharmax Corp Ltd.? (ii) Whether on the facts of the case, Ld. ITAT has erred in law ignoring the AO’s finding that the assessee company has advanced

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MUKERIAN PAPERS LTD

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

1) of the I.T.Act by ignoring the fact that such expenditure is covered u/s 35D of the I.T.Act ? 4. The first substantial question of law in both the above mentioned appeals has already been concluded by this Court on 06.08.2008 against the revenue in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHD vs. M/S VENUS REMEDIES LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

disallowance u/s 80IC was allowed. was right in law in accepting ning part of expenditure relating 1,93,15,643/-, Depreciation of nditure on R&D u/s 35(2) of revenue expenses on scientific 36,344/- to the Baddi Unit or ion u/s 80IC, when the assessee