PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S.UTKAL ALUMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

19 of 43 used only for residential purpose. 29. An undertaking by the Plaintiff, to pay the amount in respect of Suit Property, on demand. DW-2 30. A letter by the MCD in regard to the application for conversion of the property, stating that it is under process. DW-2 31. Copy of Specimen signatures and Passport Size photographs

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

House of Lords in the case of Anisminic Ltd, v. Foreign Compensation Commission, reported at 1969(1) ER 208 and the 6 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta & Bros, reported at (1971) 1 SCC 486 (para 21). 6. The second point urged by learned counsel for the appellants

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony

RAKESH MODI vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

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

4. The Opposite Party No. 2 appeared in the Family Court and opposed the application seeking maintenance. He alleged that the petitioner is of weak mind, indisciplined and selfish. He alleged that his wife was quarrelsome and assaulting him. The Opposite Party No.2 admitted birth of son from the wedlock but claimed that he was always providing monetary help