Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/S Majestic Auto Limited., Ludhiana
High Court
17 Aug 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/S Majestic Auto Limited., Ludhiana
Date of order
17 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/S Majestic Auto Limited., Ludhiana, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Issue: (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 17, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No
Decision: 3.Reference is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
I.T.R. No. 143 of 1998
DATE OF DECISION: 17.8.2009
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana
Versus
M/s Majestic Auto Limited., Ludhiana
..........Appellant
..........Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:-Mr. Krishan Mehta, Advocatefor the appellant.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocatefor the respondent.
****
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench hasreferred following question of law for opinion of this Court arising out of itsorder dated 21.11.1996 passed in ITA No. 749/Chandi/91 for assessmentyear 1985-86:-
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition ofRs.41,473/- made by Assessing Officer on account ofsalary and travelling expenses claimed by the assesseepertaining to M/s Hero Honda Project, which is separateidentity”
In view of the order passed today in I.T.R. No. 88 of 1998
(Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs. M/s Majestic
Auto Limited), the question is answered against the revenue and in favourof the assessee.
3.Reference is disposed of accordingly.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE
August 17, 2009pooja
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE
Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.