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

COMNR.OF I.TAX vs. SOUTHCO

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/11/2011) stands dismissed

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3 We have perused the order passed by the tribunal which is impugned before us and we find that the tribunal has approved the factual finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The matter pertains to the applicability of the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act. The tribunal after

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

1. This is an application under 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

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

4) with Section 185 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for the periods 3/2001-02, 2/2007-08, 4/2008-09 and 2/2013-14 fixing Annual Valuation Rs. 1,21,180/-, Rs. 1,36,190/-, Rs. 8,31,380/- and Rs. 8,36,470/- respectively which are too high, arbitrary and devoid from proper assessment. Accordingly KMC tax is too high and devoid from proper

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

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

1. There is a delay of 51 days in filing appeal petition. For the reasons stated therein, the 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

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

1. There is a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated therein, the 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

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

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