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

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

2,88,52,506.25/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Eight Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Six Point Two Five only) and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves and others. 4. The investigation further revealed that Dr. Pradeep Kumar received illegal gratification amount to Rs. 4,85,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Eighty-Five Lakhs only) from M/s Nand Kishore Fogla

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

Section 45(2) and also that the Bank had no working regarding deprecated value of assets and capital gains on sale

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

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

2. The principal question which stands posited for our consideration is whether the Assessing Officer3 was justified in invoking Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19614 basis the report which had been received from the Investigation Wing. The assessee appears to have principally asserted that this was clearly a case of “borrowed satisfaction” since full and true disclosures

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

2. The principal question which stands posited for our consideration is whether the Assessing Officer3 was justified in invoking Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19614 basis the report which had been received from the Investigation Wing. The assessee appears to have principally asserted that this was clearly a case of “borrowed satisfaction” since full and true disclosures

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXEXEMPTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. SIKSHYA O ANUSANDHAN

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : February 15, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. R.K. Murarka, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sutapa Roy Choudhury, Adv. Ms. Aratrika Roy, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd May, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In

2 a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Kolkata, erred in law in holding that income of brokerage from dealing in shares in client account were to be allowed to the set off against speculation loss treated under Section 73 of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S. KNSD ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.

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

capital gains is Rs.3,35,491/- which was claimed as exemption from tax. Though it is right that we have allowed a batch of appeals by revenue, yet while considering an application under Section 5 of the Act, we 2

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 10th January, 2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A No. 2002 (Kol) of 2017, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2 The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration. (i) Whether

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

2) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer on account of claim of deduction of proportionate amount of lease hold land written off of Rs.20,50,052? 3) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting