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

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

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 in five instalments. This is proved by the confessional statements of Rajesh Kumar Fogla, son of Nand Kishore Fogla, the proprietor of M/s Nand

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

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

capital 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

capital 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

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

Capital Gain of Rs.1,48,40,879/- instead of normal business income without considering the fact that frequency of transaction, non-maintenance of separate demat account of investment and for trading suggests that sale of shares are normal business income in nature? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

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

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 of such assets? 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the addition made in respect of realization of assets of erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank

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