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

6. In view of the ruling of the co-ordinate bench as aforesaid, following the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex 8 Court in the case of Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. as well as Maxop Investments Ltd., we have no reasons to differ from the same. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is answered

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

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

Section 148, had recorded the following reasons for reopening: “M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11 The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010- 11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 14,162/-.The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through the Addl. CIT, Range-10, New Delhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

Section 148, had recorded the following reasons for reopening: “M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11 The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010- 11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 14,162/-.The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through the Addl. CIT, Range-10, New Delhi

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 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

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

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

6 coming within the puview of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 10. Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant places strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –vs- SMIFS SECURITIES LTD rendered on 22nd

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

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

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 of the aerators, and the notice issued to the suppliers by the AO. The said supplier in its reply