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

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

disallowance on purchase of sha sold 32,650 shar 2006 as well. CONCLUSION 32. In appellant had in Vardhman Poly Vardhman Poly (O&M) and other connected ca de impugned order dated 31.07.2 Assessing Officer for the lim n account of interest paid on bor Vardhman Polytex Ltd. During parties were asked about the sta s produced before

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

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

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

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

2. In ITA No.408 of 2006 for the assessment year 1995-96, the Revenue raised the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,70,98,415/- on account of interest on borrowed funds paid

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

2. The substantial questions of law which are sought to be raised in the present case read as under: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT has erred in holding that no interest payment is disallowable under section 36(1)(iii) on interest free loan given to sister concerns whereas the aassessee

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

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

2] (O&M) and connected cases. The appellant has assailed the or Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chand eferred to as ‘the ITAT’), wher compute book profit after a ncurred by the assessee compan -12 respectively and compute th Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Learned counsel submits that th econd round of appellate proce matter against the order of C nder