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

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

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

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 for under Section 14A of the Act by following earlier order which has not reached finality even

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

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

1) of the IT Act, the books of accounts and other documents were produced. 5. In the assessment order dated 17th March, 1998 for the AY 1994-95 under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the IT Act, the AO inter alia held that the claim for 100% on aerators, marine water pumps and motors was not justified

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

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