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

Section 37 of Act 1961 on account of expenditure of Rs.61,38,000/- paid to M/s Mckinsey and Company Ltd for professional serviced rendered by it. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed both the claims of the assessee-Company, vide order dated 26.02.1999 (A-1). Feeling aggrieved against the above order, the appellant- Company preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income

M/S PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, GARHA ROAD , JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR AND ANR

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

4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration VARINDER SINGH 2024.12.05 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA No. 271 of 2014 -17- at any time under section

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

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

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 substantial questions Whether in fact and circumst authorities below not to con purchase and of sale outsid activities of a business

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

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

disallowed. 2. The matter relates to Assessment Year 1997-98. The appellant is engaged in the business of automobile parts. With intent to expand its business outside the country, it incurred travelling and staff expenses outside the country during 1995-96 and 1996-97. The appellant attempted to set up a unit in China. The project could not be materialized

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

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

37(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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: It Should Be Reinstated & Decided On Merits ? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Itat Is Justified In Dismissing The Miscellaneous Application Of The Revenue Without Discussing The Merits Ignoring The Legislative Intent Expressed In Cbdt'S Anuradha 2020.02.12 17:37 I Attest To The Accuracy & Integrity Of This Document

37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-382-2019 (O&M) 3 Investment Ltd. And many other cases decided the issue in favour of department ? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT has erred in dismissing the Miscellaneous application and not deciding the merits

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

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

M/S SHREE DIGVIJAYA WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. AMRITSAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMT-TAX, AMRITSAR

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

4,33,375 65,663 13.16% 7. 1981-82 6,69,732 66,855 9.08% 8. 1982-83 (3 months) 1,72,537 16,376 8.66% 9. 1983-84 5,08,958 76,336 13.04% Thus, it was submitted that the A.O went on an erroneous presumption by assuming that the percentage of wastage of 13.04% is excessive just

(O&M) M/S KULDIP SOOD ENTERPRISES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

The appeal stands dismissed

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 999/Chandi/1993 for A.Y. 1988-89 claiming the following questions of law:- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, order Annexure