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

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

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

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

2 The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration. (i) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, disallowance of Rs.2,84,67,351/- claimed towards depreciation. The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Siliguri Regulated Market Committee

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