PRINCIPAL COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR vs. BINAY KUMAR JINDAL, HUF

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed

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

28 Sahujain Charitable Society & Ors., (Supra). In that case, the vires of Section 179(2), second proviso was under challenge. After discussing various authorities, the Division Bench held as follows:- “25. The power conferred on the Municipal Commissioner to revise the annual valuation of land or building under Section 179(2), second proviso was indeed unlimited in point of time

BISWAJIT BEHERA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), BBSR

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

delay of 103 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application shall stand disposed of. ITA 593/2023, ITA 635/2023, ITA 636/2023, ITA 638/2023, ITA 639/2023, ITA 640/2023, ITA 641/2023, ITA 642/2023, ITA 643/2023, ITA 644/2023, ITA 645/2023, ITA 652/2023, ITA 653/2023, ITA 659/2023, ITA 2/2024, ITA 3/2024, ITA 14/2023 & ITA 21/2024 1. These set of appeals arise

NEELACHAL I.NIGAM L. vs. ASST.COMNR.OF I.TAX

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

28 99 DLR (3d) 561 (Onterio Curt of Appeal) 58 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters thereafter is at the dictation of higher authorities then the order itself would be outcome of bias and authority having original jurisdiction would not be able to come to save them under the shell. The entirety of facts cannot be fragmented in peace