COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

depreciation can be claimed etc. 11. We notice that the question really does not arise from the order of the Tribunal for the simple reason that the Tribunal has not decided the issue. Question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal only when the question is decided by the Tribunal, one way or the other. 12. Mr. Nageshwar

INDUSTRIAL INCUBATOR vs. DY.COMMNR.OF I.T.

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Section 32 of the IT Act. In the present case, however, no evidence was led by the Assessee and no material was placed before the AO to indicate that it was using a specially designed ‘natural pond’ for rearing prawns. Therefore, the Court is not persuaded that on the basis of the above decision, the conclusion reached on factual basis

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

Section 43(6)(c)(i)(B) of the Act, 1961. Therefore, the CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have not committed any manifest error of law to reduce the sale proceeds from the written down value and allowed the depreciation on reduced written down value. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the substantial question of law nos.3