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

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

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

10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 25/2022 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-04 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs. versus M/S GANESH GANGA INSVESTMENTS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajeev Ahuja, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 25/2022 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-04 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs. versus M/S GANESH GANGA INSVESTMENTS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajeev Ahuja, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

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

disallowed such depreciation for earlier years but for the assessment year in question, the Assessing Officer had allowed the depreciation on the goodwill part and for subsequent years without assigning any reason, but it was done otherwise. 4. It is this part of the assessment orders the Commissioner proposed to revise and the assessee had raised a preliminary objection pointing

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

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 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the compensation for damages caused to the surface of the lease area or for infringement of rights of any person by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, was to be paid. In the matter of the respondent/assessee, the compensation for damages caused to the surface or infringement

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

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

10% by the Tribunal accepting as just and proper beyond the statute ?” 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