PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.S.C.PADHEE

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: The Trial Court. I.E., Appellant No.1 As Accused No.1/Company & Appellant Nos.2 To 4 As Accused Nos. 2 To 4.

business of acquisition and sale of lands. Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 herein are the Directors of Accused No.1/Company. ii) Accused No.1/Company has acquired lands to an extent of Ac.7.50 guntas in Sy.Nos.198 and 198 (P) under the limits of Bachupally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District during the financial year 2002-2003 and developed the 3 said lands by incurring

NALCO vs. COMNR.OF INCOME TAX

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 16Th January, 2024 Appearance : Sri Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Smt. Oindrilla Ghosal, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Sri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Sri Sanjoy Bhaumik, Adv. Smt. Swapna Das, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Revenue & Sri J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjoy Bhaumik & Smt. Swapna Das, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee. 2. This Appeal Was Admitted By This Court By An Order Dated 30.11.2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law: “1) Whether In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case The Tribunal Erred By Not Considering That Subsides Which May Be Used Freely

business operation. Therefore, the expenditure so incurred by the respondent/assessee is revenue in nature. Consequently, the CIT(A) and the Income Tax appellate Tribunal have not committed any error of law to hold the aforesaid expenditure of Rs.19,38,232/- as revenue in nature and accordingly allowed the deduction. 9. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

business income of a banking company even though conversion of securities from investments to Stock in Trade attracts provision' of Section 45(2) and also that the Bank had no working regarding deprecated value of assets and capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

capital gains or loans as per the specific requirement of the recipient clients were provided to them in lieu of the cash received from them. In this way, the chain for providing an accommodation entry gets completed. It is noticed from the list of entries that the assessee M/s Ganesh Ganga Investment P. Ltd. has taken following accommodation entries during

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

capital gains or loans as per the specific requirement of the recipient clients were provided to them in lieu of the cash received from them. In this way, the chain for providing an accommodation entry gets completed. It is noticed from the list of entries that the assessee M/s Ganesh Ganga Investment P. Ltd. has taken following accommodation entries during

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. SEKHAR KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

Capital Gain account showing sale proceeds to be Rs. 20.20 lacs. Investigation also revealed that attached immovable properties namely (i) 1A, 1st Floor, Sugam Hemant Apartment, 75 Bondel Road, Kolkata-700019 purchased through registered sale deed 9786 dated 31.08.2009 area 1569 Sq. Ft. total consideration amount with stamp duty and registration Rs. 42,28,764/- (ii) a car-parking space