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

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

6 years limitation in that section. 16. Learned Advocate finally submitted that otherwise also the present appeal has become academic in view of the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner during the pendency of the appeal, applied under Unit Area Assessment (U.A.A.) System for determination of the annual valuation for the period 1/2007-2018 and accepted the annual valuation

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

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

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

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

6(1) the 'real danger' test, interpreted as in the first-mentioned case, introduced a discrepancy between the Convention and the common law in ensuring impartial decision- making. In addition it disregarded the hallowed principle that justice must be seen to be done. The House of Lords, in recognition of this discrepancy, has now made 'a modest adjustment