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

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

9. The CIT (A) and the ITAT have concurred with the views of the AO. 10. Even before this Court, the Assessee was unable to explain the basis for claiming depreciation on ponds and reservoirs. Mr. STREV No.28 of 2006 Page 5 of 6 Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant (Assessee) placed reliance on the decision

ISPAT ALLOYS LTD. vs. DY.COMMNR.OF I.T.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms with no

Bench: The Assessing Officer (Ao) & Claimed Depreciation Allowance On The Increased Cost Of The Plant & Machinery Due To Exchange Fluctuations. The Ao In The Assessment Order Dated 31St March 1997 Rejected The Above Claim.

depreciation allowance on increased cost of plant and machinery due to exchange rate fluctuation. The CIT (A) referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd [1994] 207 ITR 718 (Cal); the decision of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Aluminum Corporation

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

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

9. Mr. Aravind, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/revenue points out that it is only a remand order passed by the Tribunal and the order passed by the Assessing Authority for the subsequent years without assigning reasons is an erroneous order 6 coming within the puview of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section

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

depreciable fixed assets chargeable of tax on the basis that the accounting treatment cannot effect the operation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 43(6) of the said Act and for the purpose of income tax the block of assets concept was followed as per the statutory provisions?” Substantial Question of Law No.1 3. So far as the afore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGAM LTD.

In the result, this Income Tax Appeal is allowed, setting

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. 4. The first appellate authority, after a detailed discussion of the relevant provisions, as well as the ITA NO. 11 OF 2018 -4- adjustment of various Rules and Tribunals, allowed the Appeal in part. 5. As per the said order