PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

Income Tax is invalid and without application of mind. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment is invalid and bad in Law and cannot be sustained in Law. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Resultantly, all additions stands deleted. Since we have

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

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

reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1-3-1995. d) The documents so received by the AO at Bhilai included one spiral bound diary, which was marked as MR-71/91. In the said diary certain receipts and disbursement of money was found

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.

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

reassessment under Section 153A, no addition can be made except based on seized material. We find that the Assessing Officer has placed a copy of the seized material at page 10 of the assessment order which clearly shows different entries recorded by the assessee including an entry of Mandir and Pooja of Rs.35 lakhs for the F.Y.2005-06. Therefore, the addition

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

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

reassessment would have to be founded on justiciable grounds was an aspect which was also duly highlighted by the Supreme Court in Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commr. of Customs11 when it had observed: ―14. In our opinion, the expression ―deems it necessary‖ obviously means that the proper officer must have good reason to subject imported goods to a chemical

PRINCIPAL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S SHREE METALIKS LIMITED, KEONJHAR

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

REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.01.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BENGALURU, FOR THE TAX PERIOD OF APRIL-06 TO MARCH -07, APRIL -07 TO MARCH -08, APRIL-08 TO MARCH-09 AND APRIL-09 TO JUNE-09. THIS STRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM

PRINCIPAL COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. BOUDH CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.

In the result, the appeal (APO/2/2023) is allowed and

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Pranit Bag Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Adv. ...For The Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Intra-Court Appeal By The Writ Petitioner Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th November, 2022 In Wpo/2571/2022. The Appellant Had Filed The Writ Petition Challenging An Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) & The Consequential Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. The Learned Single Bench Dismissed The Writ Petition On The Ground That The Order Has Not Been Passed By An

addition which is being contested by the appellant before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This contention raised by the assessee before us has not been pointed out in the objections filed to the reopening 4 proceedings. The only ground which was raised by the assessee was that the information based on which reopening proceedings were initiated cannot be termed

BARUNEI ROLLER FLOUR MILL (P) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1

In the result, the award of the maximum uniform rate for the

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI (ACJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

reassessment of the compensation on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that is stated to be on record. 3. FA No. 2 of 2023, is filed by Smti Susan M. Wahlang (deceased), respondent No. 36/claimant No. 39, is for enhancement of the rates and compensation for severance of land. 4. FA No. 3 of 2023, is filed

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

additional market value under Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

additional market value under Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended

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

Income Tax 30 Officer, Rampur reported at (1973) 1 SCC 633, in support of his argument that the Hearing Officer had clutched on to jurisdiction by deciding the jurisdictional facts erroneously. It was argued that the present case falls within the exception carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade