Case LawHigh Court › M/S Freeman Measures Pvt. Ltd v. Commiss...

M/S Freeman Measures Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana And Anr

High Court 11 Feb 2020 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
M/S Freeman Measures Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana And Anr
Date of order
11 Feb 2020
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In M/S Freeman Measures Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana And Anr, the High Court (2020) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: Whether speaking/ reasonedYes/No2.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

420IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ke kITA No. 220 of 2001DECIDED ON: FEBRUARY 11, 2020 M/S FREEMAN MEASURES PVT. LTD, VERSUS APPELLANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA AND ANR RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present:Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the respondents. AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): ok o This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has beenfiled against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench“A” maintaining some dis-allowances in terms of car expenses for personal use,depreciation and staff welfare expenses etc.| 2.Having gone through the facts of the case we find that each of theissue 1S a pure question of fact. 3.It has not been shown that these findings have been arrived at perverse Nanne I. JAJAY TEWARITJUDGE JAVNEESH JHINGAN]JUDGE FEBRUARY II, 2020 sham1. Whether speaking/ reasonedYes/No2. Whether reportableYes /No1. Whether speaking/ reasonedYes/No2. Whether reportableYes /No
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan