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

5. The Assessing Officer first 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

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

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

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

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. 6. The Assessee during the assessment proceedings disclosed that the name of the supply

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