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.

capital gains. 4 iv) Accused No.1/Company is expected to pay the income tax either by way of advance tax as required under Section 208 of the Act or at least along with filing of returns in terms of Section 140-A of the Act. As per Section 143 (1) of the Act, the tax liability of Accused No.1 was arrived

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

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

Section 148, had recorded the following reasons for reopening: “M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11 The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010- 11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 14,162/-.The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through the Addl. CIT, Range-10, New Delhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

Section 148, had recorded the following reasons for reopening: “M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11 The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010- 11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 14,162/-.The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through the Addl. CIT, Range-10, New Delhi

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

capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure ? In the present set of facts there is no such controversy and, instead, the controversy is with regard to the expenditure in the form of compensation incurred by the respondent/assessee during the course of mining/business operation. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is clearly distinguishable