COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. OREGANISATION FOR THE RURAL WOMEN AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Appeal is disposed of and

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant to condone the delay of 05 days in preferring this Tax Appeal. 2. Keeping in view of the facts of the case, we are inclined to condone the delay. The delay of 05 days in filing the present Tax Appeal is hereby condoned. 3

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

3 years before the date of revising order. 14. The effect of breach of obligation under Section 182 by the assessee vis-à-vis the power of the authority to revise the Annual 31 Valuation does not appear to be in issue in Sahujain (supra). Therefore, Sahujain (supra) cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition that even

PRINCIPAL COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR RANGE vs. M/S. TATA SPONGE IRON LTD.

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

3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value

COMNR.OF I.TAX vs. SANDY RESORTS P.LTD

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

Section 151 CPC is for condonation of 99 days delay in refiling the appeal. MAMTA 2022.06.02 12:57 I atttest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment LPA NO. 122 of 2006(O&M) and LPA No.2327 of 2017(O&M) 2 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in para no.2 of the application, delay of 99 days in refiling

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

THE PRINCIPAL,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL,ANDHRA PRADESH vs. M/S NIDAN,INFRONT OF DIG OFFICE,BERHAMPUR

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

delay is condoned. I.A. No.8 of 2019 is allowed. ITA No.150 of 2018 2. The present appeal by the Revenue challenges an order dated 16th May, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in IT(SS) A Nos.32 to 37/ CTK/2018 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 to 2015-16. The questions sought

THE PRINCIPAL,COMMISSIONER OF IT (CENTRAL) vs. M/S NIDAN,BERHAMPUR

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

delay is condoned. I.A. No.9 of 2019 is allowed. ITA No.155 of 2018 2. The present appeal by the Revenue challenges an order dated 16th May, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in IT(SS) A Nos.32 to 37/ CTK/2018 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 to 2015-16. The questions sought

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA STEVEDORS LTD

The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to restore the appeal in the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Dipendra Nath Chunder, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. … For Respondent The Court : This Matter Is Appearing In The Supplementary List Today. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St May, 2009 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 355/Kol/2009 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Appeal Was Admitted On 13Th February, 2012 On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

section 30 to 36 of the Income Tax Act, and as such the assessee is entitled to get benefit of deduction u/s. 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii) Whether the Learned Appellate Tribunal erred in law in not holding that merely on the basis of the return of notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act 1961 after

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S.POSCO INDIA PVT.LTD.

Appeal is dismissed as

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

Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 184 days in representing the I.T.T.A and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. DUNDU MANMOHAN The Court made the following

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

Delay of 5 days in filing the appeals is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. ITA 1/2024, ITA 10/2024 and ITA 12/2024 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 impugns the validity of the order dated 16 May 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 and posits the following questions of law for our consideration:- “A. Whether on the facts