COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) vs. KIIT-TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS INCUBATOR(KIIT TBI)

The appeals are dismissed and substantial questions

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

2 IA NO.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/799/2018) ITAT/88/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA -Versus- LAKSHMI TRUST IA NO.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/801/2018) ITAT/89/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA -Versus- KRISHNA CHARITY TRUST IA NO.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/803/2018) ITAT/90/2018 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA -Versus- UDAIPUR CHARITY TRUST IA NO.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/809/2018) ITAT/93/2018 COMMISSIONER

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. SIKHYA O ANUSANDHAN

Bench: The Itat Against The Respondent-Assessee For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2007-08 Till 2012-13.

2. The common question sought to be urged by the Revenue in these appeals is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as well as the ITAT were justified in allowing the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) to the Respondent-Assessee? 3. For the various AYs in question

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SIKHYA\"O\"ANUSANDHAN

Bench: The Itat Against The Respondent-Assessee For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2007-08 Till 2012-13.

2. The common question sought to be urged by the Revenue in these appeals is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as well as the ITAT were justified in allowing the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) to the Respondent-Assessee? 3. For the various AYs in question

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.DEWDROP MERCHANTS PVT.LTD.

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

Section 166 of the Act on the ground that he was working as Chartered Accountant and was earning Rs.84,000/- p.m. It was pleaded that he also spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver

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