PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.JAGANNATH CHAUDHURY

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

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

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer concludes that the assessee earned income from interest on deposits from members and deposits made in scheduled Banks from trading commodities and interest from call money depositors. In view of the view taken by the Assessing Officer, the said income has been treated as income from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXEXEMPTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. SIKSHYA O ANUSANDHAN

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : February 15, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. R.K. Murarka, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sutapa Roy Choudhury, Adv. Ms. Aratrika Roy, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd May, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In

business income in nature? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Kolkata, erred in law in holding that the disallowance

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

Income Tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(A), the respondent/assessee restricted its claim for deduction to Rs.19,38,232/-. The CIT(A) had set aside the disallowance made by the assessing officer and accepted the contention of the assessee that the compensation paid was an expenditure incidental to the business

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

business. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment years 2011-12, disclosing nil income. The appellant, while filing the return of income, made claim for Rs.1,52,76,459/- ITA NO. 11 OF 2018 -3- (carried forward loss), which included depreciation loss of Rs.1,88,52,496/- (pertaining to the assessment years

MANAS R.MOHANTY vs. ASST.COMNR.OF INCOME

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

disallowing the  appeals   presented   by   revenue   and   thereby   confirming   the   order   dated  22.08.2007   passed   by  the   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax   (Appeals)   –   II,  Nashik. 2. The questions that arises for consideration in the appeals is as to  whether the Commissioner for Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income  Tax Appellate Tribunal were justified in treating the expenditure incurred  ita27.12

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST

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

disallowances u/ s 14A read with rule 8D also applicable in the case. The statement given by Shri Himanshu Verma also establishes the link with the self-confessed “accommodation entry providers” whose business is to help assessees bring back their unaccounted money into This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

disallowances u/ s 14A read with rule 8D also applicable in the case. The statement given by Shri Himanshu Verma also establishes the link with the self-confessed “accommodation entry providers” whose business is to help assessees bring back their unaccounted money into This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi

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

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

business of prawn cultivation. The returns filed by the Assessee for the aforementioned AYs were picked up for scrutiny by the Assessing Officer (AO). In the return for the AYs 1994-95, the Assessee had carried forward deficit to the extent of Rs.2,94,970. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the AY 1995-96 it was noticed

M/S.G.K.W.LTD vs. COMNR.OF INCOMETAX

The appeal is disposed of in the

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

business?” 3. As far as Question (b) is concerned, the interest earned on the deposits was at a time when commercial production had not yet commenced. Admittedly, the interest was from short term deposits made by the Assessee out of the borrowed capital. 4. The question is no longer res integra. A similar question has in fact been answered

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) after perusing the assessment records, which included an assessment order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. Inter alia, the CIT noted that during the AY in question the Assessee had made payments to the tune of Rs.1344,63,25,000/- to non-resident