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

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

8-24-53,Mangalagiri Road,Guntur ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section _______ against ordersto set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Visakghapatnam Bench,Visakhapatnam,in ITA No 273/Vizag/2012 dated 07.04.2017, for A.Y. 2007-08. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition

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

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

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

8 SCC 579, paragraphs 9 to 12, which read as follows:- “9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute

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 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