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

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the assessee is entitled to claim the left over portion of depreciation of Rs 9

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 (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST

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

disallowances u/ s 14A read with rule 8D also applicable in the case. The statement given by Shri Himanshu Verma also establishes the link with the self-confessed “accommodation entry providers” whose business is to help assessees bring back their unaccounted money into This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

disallowances u/ s 14A read with rule 8D also applicable in the case. The statement given by Shri Himanshu Verma also establishes the link with the self-confessed “accommodation entry providers” whose business is to help assessees bring back their unaccounted money into This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi

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

9. Mr. Aravind, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/revenue points out that it is only a remand order passed by the Tribunal and the order passed by the Assessing Authority for the subsequent years without assigning reasons is an erroneous order 6 coming within the puview of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section

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

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The Tribunal?

section 254 of the I.T. Act, 1961 that as a consequence of the impugned order of the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.80,221/- is payable by the petitioner to the Income Tax Department. We direct that on the petitioner paying 50% of the said amount of Rs.80,221/-by the end of January, 2005 the balance of the demand shall

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

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

disallowed only because in the previous year in question, the manufacturing activity of the Assessee had not commenced. As explained by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the aforementioned decision, this is not one of the conditions on which the deduction is allowable. As long as the technical know-how is acquired and payment therefor is made in the same

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