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

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

II. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct to hold the ITA Nos.179 and 180 of 2004 Page 2 of 6 rate of depreciation on machinery and equipments etc. @ 25% instead of 100% claimed as per the statute being on the case pollution control equipments used aqua culture purposes for providing healthy growth

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

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

II Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560 058. Represented by Mr. Laxminarayan Gaur, Director. … APPELLANT (By Sri. Nageswar Rao, for PDS Legal, Advocate) AND: The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Bangalore-I), Central Revenue Buildings, Queen’s Road, Bangalore-560 001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri. K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel) … These appeals are filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 praying

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

II, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Birla Corporation Limited). Following the aforesaid judgment, the substantial question of law no.1, as afore-quoted, is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The present appeal of the revenue stands allowed in respect of the substantial question of law no.1 and to that extent the impugned order of the Tribunal dated