COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. OREGANISATION FOR THE RURAL WOMEN AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Appeal is disposed of and

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

delay of 05 days in filing the present Tax Appeal is hereby condoned. 3. I.A. No. 1466 of 2021 is accordingly allowed. T.A. No. 23 of 2019: 4. Heard Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The present appeal has been filed against the order passed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S. KNSD ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.

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

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 of the Act, we 2 are to take note of several factors. We are also conscious of the fact that we have condoned longer period of delay

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

condoned. It is argued by learned ASG that the High Court has wrongly applied Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, inasmuch as, as per the judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [(2017) 81 Taxmann.com 111 SC], the said rule has prospective application w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and the assessment year in question is 2002-03. Having

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