Case Law › High Court › Ita/5/2013 Of Comnr.of Income Tax v. Ori...

Ita/5/2013 Of Comnr.of Income Tax v. Orissa Stevedors Ltd

High Court 21 Feb 2022 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · cisnc

Parties

Date of order

21 Feb 2022

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/5/2013 Of Comnr.of Income Tax v. Orissa Stevedors Ltd, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.5 of 2013 ….Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Sr. S.C, Income Tax -versus- The Orissa Stevedores Ltd, Cuttack ….Respondent CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK Order No. 4. ORDER 21.02.2022 1. This present appeal of the Department directed against the order dated 31[st] August, 2012 passed by the ITAT, Cuttack Bench Cuttack in ITA Nos.89, 90 and 91/ CTK/2012 for the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. Among the questions sought to be urged by the Department is whether reduction of quantum disallowance by the ITAT under heads of ‘incentive charges’, business promotion, donation, and subscription was justified? Having heard learned counsel for the Department and having perused the impugned order of the ITAT, the Court finds that the matter turned entirely on facts and no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (R. K. Pattanaik) Judge

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.