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

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

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

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

8. It is undisputed that the assessee acquired a mining lease of 9.99 kilometers situated in village- Chittorgarh for obtaining lime stone used as raw material for manufacture of cement. To carry out the mining operation/business activity, the assessee has paid the amount in question to land owners for damage caused to the surface of the land or for infringement