ASHIRBAD BEHERA vs. ASST.COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal [ITA/7/2020] filed by the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 27Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th May, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.665/Kol/2012 & Ita No.325/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Appeal Was Admitted On 12Th December, 2019 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law: “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Holding That The Assessee Has Sufficient Own Funds, Expenditure By Way Of Interest Are Not To Be Taken In Account

B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.665/Kol/2012 and ITA No.325/Kol/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted on 12th December, 2019 on the following substantial question of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessee has sufficient

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

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

b) Whether the remark of the Principal Commission of Income Tax |"PCIT"| ''Yes, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act" shows that the PCIT has not 1 PCIT 2 Tribunal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

b) Whether the remark of the Principal Commission of Income Tax |"PCIT"| ''Yes, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act" shows that the PCIT has not 1 PCIT 2 Tribunal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High

PURI HOTEL P.LTD vs. ADDL.COMNR.OF TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The Tribunal?

disallowance of 5% of the expenses claimed under the head “ marketing expenses and provisions” if the Tribunal had considered the documents/agreements Page 2 of 5 produced by the appellant before the Tribunal? 3. On the same day in Misc. Case No. 35 of 2004, the following order was passed by this Court: “Heard Mr. G.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant

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

2) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer on account of claim of deduction of proportionate amount of lease hold land written off of Rs.20,50,052? 3) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting

M/S.G.K.W.LTD vs. COMNR.OF INCOMETAX

The appeal is disposed of in the

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

2 (SC), this Court held that interest earned on short term deposits from the borrowed capital would be capital and not revenue in nature. Consequently, Question (b) is answered in the negative in favour of the Assessee and against the Department. 5. As far as Question (c) is concerned, reliance is placed by learned counsel for the Assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S. SERAJUDDIN AND CO.

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 26Th July, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. S.M. Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv. Md. Afzal Ansari, Adv. … For Respondent

B” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A No. 2002 (Kol) of 2017, for the assessment year 2012-13. 2 The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration. (i) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, disallowance of Rs.2,84,67,351/- claimed towards depreciation. The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has relied on the decision

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

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

B. Panda Senior Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mohapatra Senior Standing Counsel (IT) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA JUDGMENT 10.11.2021 Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. The following questions of law were framed by this Court while admitting both the appeals on 13th May, 2005: “II. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal