ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S. SERAJUDDIN AND CO.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 26Th July, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv. Md. Afzal Ansari, Adv. … For Respondent

capital gain from sale of cars would qualify for exemption under section 11(1A) of the Act since the tax effect on this issue is less than the threshold limit? (iii) Whether disallowance of exemption under section 11(1)(a) on administrative and establishment expenses of Rs.3,54,12,977/-. On this issue, the department has accepted the decision

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

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

14-A are satisfied in the case of Assessee? 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowances of deprecation on HTM category of investments by erroneously holding that value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed as a deduction while

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

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

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

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