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

Section 152 CPC, to the extent of award of solatium. 2. FA Nos. 1 and 5 of 2023, has been preferred by individual land owners namely Smti Bertilin Kharbuli, respondent No. 58/claimant No. 63, and Smti Hinda Mawrie, respondent No. 8/claimant No. 9, against the Page 16 of 99 same impugned judgment and order dated 17.03.2020, whereby the learned

BISWAJIT BEHERA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), BBSR

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

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub - section ( 1

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

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

1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST

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

1) at the declared income of Rs. 4,200. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that the amount of such transactions particularly that of Rs. 5,00,000 (as mentioned above) has escaped the assessment within the meaning of the proviso to section 147 and clause (b) to Explanation 2 of this section. Submitted

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

1) at the declared income of Rs. 4,200. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that the amount of such transactions particularly that of Rs. 5,00,000 (as mentioned above) has escaped the assessment within the meaning of the proviso to section 147 and clause (b) to Explanation 2 of this section. Submitted

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

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 acquisition purpose requires

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

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 acquisition purpose requires

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

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

SECTION 65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2022 PASSED IN STA NO.1916 TO 1954/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE R - 2 - STRP No. 39 of 2023 TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2014 PASSED IN NO.KET-AP/20 TO 58/09-10 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BBSR vs. M/S. POSCO INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed and the

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

Section 142(1) of the Act dated 2nd January, 2022. We note that the said objection is also a very elaborate objection. 6 In the said objection/reply the assessee has reiterated its earlier stand taken in its objection dated 21st December, 2021. Once again the assessee has reiterated that the information sought for by them has not been provided till

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

1. This writ petition questions the validity of the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] as well as the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 27 April 2022. One of the principal grounds of challenge was a failure on the part of the respondents to have complied with

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

1 SCC 213 (vide paragraph 18) this Court observed:- "18. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said a long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it." 16. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. HARSHAD RAI MEHTA

Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA.” 3. Further in the matter of Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. Central 8 Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. reported in 305 Taxman 169 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the order passed under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS SLTD.

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. Judgment prepared in separate sheets is delivered and pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and the order is passed accordingly as follows:- 3. In the present case, the assessing officer has not relied