Orissa High Court Judgments — 2019

The tribunal held that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, which is mandatory for specific performance. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance.

The tribunal held that while the land valuation was reasonable, the compensation for the temple was arbitrarily low. The award was modified to enhance the compensation for the temple structure.

The Tribunal held that Section 73(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, was applicable because a show-cause notice invoking the proviso to Section 73(1) was issued. This negated the applicability of Section 73(3), which would have protected the appellant from penalty if tax was paid before the notice.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 was not applicable because the sums were not credited in the assessee's books, and Section 69 was not applicable as there were no unexplained investments found in the assessee's name. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning.

The Tribunal accepted the memo and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The decision was made in accordance with the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limits for departmental appeals.