ASHIRBAD BEHERA vs. ASST.COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal [ITA/7/2020] filed by the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 27Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th May, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.665/Kol/2012 & Ita No.325/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Appeal Was Admitted On 12Th December, 2019 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law: “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Holding That The Assessee Has Sufficient Own Funds, Expenditure By Way Of Interest Are Not To Be Taken In Account

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the assessee is entitled to claim the left over portion of depreciation of Rs 9,02,49,544/- being the carry forward figure from the previous year under section 32(1

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

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

1. 4000000 Shubh Propbuild P Ltd., 2. 4000000 Jaguar Softech P. Ltd., 3. 4000000 Join Fashion P. Ltd., 4. 4000000 Management Services P. Ltd., 5. 4000000 Greenvision Construction P. Ltd., 6. 4000000 USK Exim P. Ltd., TOTAL 2,45,00,000/- On the basis of the reports received from the Investigation Wing, I have downloaded the return from

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

1. 4000000 Shubh Propbuild P Ltd., 2. 4000000 Jaguar Softech P. Ltd., 3. 4000000 Join Fashion P. Ltd., 4. 4000000 Management Services P. Ltd., 5. 4000000 Greenvision Construction P. Ltd., 6. 4000000 USK Exim P. Ltd., TOTAL 2,45,00,000/- On the basis of the reports received from the Investigation Wing, I have downloaded the return from

M/S.BHASKAR TRADERS vs. ASST.COMMKNR.OF INCOME TAX,BERHAMPUR

The appeals are dismissed

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

1 of 4 later issued notice under Section 153A of the Act. He contested the notice and ultimately suffered several adverse orders by way of final assessment, which resulted in substantial additions. These additions primarily were on account of (a) alleged unexplained credit-brought to tax under Section 68, and, (b) the amounts secured as loan were treated as “deemed

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

2. The appeal was admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law:- 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of 3 expenditure of earning exempt income under Sec.14A of the Act by erroneously holding that no disallowance is called

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SEKHAR KUMAR MOHAPATRA

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI (ACJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

disallowance of carry forward of deficit ignoring the fact that there is no excess provision in Act allowing such claim 3 and without appreciating the fact that this would have effect of granting double benefit to assessee, first as accumulation of income under section 11(1)(a) or corpus donation under section 11(1)(d) in the earlier/current year

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES

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

2 of 3 accordingly directed the AO to make the assessment de novo other than the issue of disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1344,63,25,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the CIT, the aforementioned sum claimed as expenditure towards import value of machinery, spares and raw materials and charged to the P&L account

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S. SERAJUDDIN AND CO.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 26Th July, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv. Md. Afzal Ansari, Adv. … For Respondent

2 The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration. (i) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, disallowance of Rs.2,84,67,351/- claimed towards depreciation. The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Siliguri Regulated Market Committee

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 ? ”

1, KOLKATA VS. M/S. SURENDRA STEELS PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And 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

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

2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? d) 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 only dividend yielding investment are to be taken into account while calculating the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS SLTD.

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. Judgment prepared in separate sheets is delivered and pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and the order is passed accordingly as follows:- 3. In the present case, the assessing officer has not relied

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

section was not allowable since manufacture had not commenced even though the Assessee had commenced its 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

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

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

2. The appeal itself arises out of an order dated 30th April, 2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the Appellant-Assesee’s appeal for the Assessment Years (AYs) 1994-95 and 1995-96. The said appeals before the ITAT bearing Nos.168 and 169/CTK/2001 were in turn directed against the common order dated 3rd January

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. INDRANI PATNAIK

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 26 : th 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that ITAT has erred in upholding the decision passed by CIT(A), whereby it has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.7,17,95,500/- as ‘unexplained expenditure’ in complete disregard of the system of accounting

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

1) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case the Tribunal erred by not considering that subsides which may be used freely, are operational subsidies and not capital subsides and thus the same are taxable as revenue income? 2) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting

PURI HOTEL P.LTD vs. ADDL.COMNR.OF TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The Tribunal?

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 3rd April, 2004 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, (ITAT) in ITA No. Nos. 53 of 2001 for the assessment years (AY) 1995-96. 2. While admitting the present appeal on 12th October, 2004, the following question of law was framed for consideration: “Whether

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA ITA NOS.119-120/2013 BETWEEN: Fibres and Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd., (A Private Company Limited by Shares, Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) Having its office