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

2) which requires investments are to be treated as Stock in Trade? 7. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that addition to book profits under Section 115 JB towards expenditure on exempt income is purely academic in nature as the Tribunal has held that no disallowances

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

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

2,45,00,000/- On the basis of the reports received from the Investigation Wing, I have downloaded the return from the ITD portal and verified the records and it is clear that the assessee company has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration as it emerges that transactions

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

2,45,00,000/- On the basis of the reports received from the Investigation Wing, I have downloaded the return from the ITD portal and verified the records and it is clear that the assessee company has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration as it emerges that transactions

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES

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

2 of 3 accordingly directed the AO to make the assessment de novo other than the issue of disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1344,63,25,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the CIT, the aforementioned sum claimed as expenditure towards import value of machinery, spares and raw materials and charged to the P&L account

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

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

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

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The Tribunal?

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 and Mr. A. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. This is an application for stay of the order dated

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

2. The appellant was engaged in the business of aqua farm culture and sale of its proceeds. Until 2007, the company functioned in the name of 'M/s.Victory Aqua Farm Limited' and later changed its name to 'M/s.Kings Infra Ventures Limited' and ventured into construction business. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment years 2011-12, disclosing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. INDRANI PATNAIK

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

2 of 4 3. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that in the questions of law framed by appellant the emphasis is on the factum that the entities from whom the purchases had been shown to have been made by the respondent-assessee were bogus and non-existent, on the ground that such entities were not found existing

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

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

Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961 praying to admit the appeal to answer the substantial questions of law set out in para-34, set aside order dated 09.11.2012, passed in I.T.A. Nos.557 and 2 558/Bang/2012 for the Assessment year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and quash any proceedings instituted pursuant to the directions issued thereunder. These appeals coming

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

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

2. The appeal itself arises out of an order dated 30th April, 2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the Appellant-Assesee’s appeal for the Assessment Years (AYs) 1994-95 and 1995-96. The said appeals before the ITAT bearing Nos.168 and 169/CTK/2001 were in turn directed against the common order dated 3rd January