PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of

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

disallowances of deprecation on HTM category of investments by erroneously holding that value of investments made pursuant to SLR requirements of RBI can be allowed as a deduction

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

deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) of Rs. 1,42,23,305/- and ITA Nos.68/2017, 196/2019, 63/2019, 1/2018, 219/2019 -8- return of income at Rs.1,62,080/-. 5. The Assessing Officer first disallowed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. KAMAL LOCHAN DAS

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial question of law is

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th May, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `B’ Bench, Kolkata In Ita No.78/Kol./2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Question Of Law For Consideration : - “Whether The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80-Ic Of The Act ? ”

disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act ? ” 2 We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel

ORISSA SPONGE IRON vs. AST.COMNR.I.TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: And Within The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S. 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act?”

disallowances of Employees Contribution made at Rs.70,70,127/- and correctly held that the deduction of the // 2 // Page 2 of 3 amount

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

deduction is sought of 1/6th of the expenditure on acquiring the know-how. It has been disallowed only because in the previous

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

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

disallowed   the   claim   holding   that   untimely  death of plants mainly referred as mortality is nothing but capital loss and  is not liable for deduction

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES

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

deducting tax at source and Page 2 of 3 accordingly directed the AO to make the assessment de novo other than the issue of disallowance

M/S.SHEETAL REAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions of law

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

deductions, had the income been shown as profits of business, but has not been claimed. Thus the CIT(A) concluded that on the overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case leads to the clear and inevitable conclusion that the intention of the assessee was clear in making profit from turnover and not by way of return

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

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

disallowing a claim put forth by the assessee and if that is not the correct thing, it can amount to an erroneous order. The Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT –vs- INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. RENDERED ON 4TH JANUARY, 2012 IN ITA NO. 588/2006