COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.KRUPAJAL TRUST

Accordingly, the review petitions are allowed and the order dated

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

deduction for advances made by Rural Branches U/s 36(1) (viia)/B such order is concerned, in view of the decision of Kerala and Karnataka High Court, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee to the extent that in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court, no disallowance will be made u/s 14A." Being aggrieved

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA STEVEDORS LTD

The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to restore the appeal in the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Dipendra Nath Chunder, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. … For Respondent The Court : This Matter Is Appearing In The Supplementary List Today. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St May, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 355/Kol/2009 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Appeal Was Admitted On 13Th February, 2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

deduction u/s. 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii) Whether the Learned Appellate Tribunal erred in law in not holding that merely on the basis of the return of notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act 1961 after lapse of considerable period would not be sufficient to make disallowance/addition of co-ordination expenses incurred by the assessee

PRINCIPAL COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR RANGE vs. M/S. TATA SPONGE IRON LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

delay in the clearance of the imported consignments, the appellants and its sister concern had been compelled to pay excess duty of over Rs 25 crores from August 2013 onwards. It is unfortunate and has to be accepted that the respondent authorities had compelled and forced the appellant to furnish the letter dated 6- 3-2017 thereby waiving