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

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

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

5. We note that undisputedly this was not a case emanating from a scrutiny assessment that may have been undertaken by virtue of Section 143(3) of the Act. The AO, while invoking 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

5. We note that undisputedly this was not a case emanating from a scrutiny assessment that may have been undertaken by virtue of Section 143(3) of the Act. The AO, while invoking 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

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

5. Learned senior standing counsel for the revenue has submitted that the compensation paid by the assessee to land owners for damage caused to the surface of the land falling in mining lease area for carrying out mining operation or allied activity, is a capital expenditure and not a business expenditure and the CIT(A) has committed a manifest error