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

loss of Rs.1,52,76,459/- was adjusted against the taxable income of Rs.35,85,037/- for the assessment year 2011-12, whereby the taxable income came to be nil. The assessment authority disallowed the set

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXEXEMPTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. SIKSHYA O ANUSANDHAN

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : February 15, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. R.K. Murarka, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sutapa Roy Choudhury, Adv. Ms. Aratrika Roy, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd May, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In

loss can only be set off against speculation profit? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Kolkata, erred in law in holding that the profit out of sale of shares to be treated as Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.97,51,280/- Short Term Capital Gain

MANAS R.MOHANTY vs. ASST.COMNR.OF INCOME

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

disallowed   the   claim   holding   that   untimely  death of plants mainly referred as mortality is nothing but capital loss and  is not liable for deduction.   3. The appellate authority while deciding the appeal presented by the  assessee observed in the judgment that the orchard activities were shown  as stock under the head Current Assets in the balance sheet and any loss

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BBSR vs. RADHESHYAM SINGHANIA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI (ACJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

disallowance of the commission expenditure incurred by the Appellant, is based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises, hence bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 3. He states that the Tribunal has arrived at perverse findings without taking cognizance of the documents in the form of emails filed by the Appellant in support of the transaction of commission

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

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

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 that search & seizure action was conducted by Inv. Wing at the office of Sh. Himanshu Verma where various incriminating documents/ materials were seized during the course of search. During the post search investigation

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

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 that search & seizure action was conducted by Inv. Wing at the office of Sh. Himanshu Verma where various incriminating documents/ materials were seized during the course of search. During the post search investigation

M/S.SHEETAL REAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions of law

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

set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) which is incorrect as it is factually wrong. It is no doubt true that the learned tribunal committed a mistake in referring to the said account as a current account, the fact being it is a cash credit account. The question would be whether if it is a cash credit account

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

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

set right by the Tribunal etc. 13. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the Commissioner assumed jurisdiction only on the Assessing Authority having not given reason for the passing of the order and therefore, the Tribunal thought it not necessary to interfere on this ground, more importantly the Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer for re-examining the matter