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 RANGE vs. M/S. TATA SPONGE IRON LTD.

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

11. It was this decision which came to be subjected to challenge before the CESTAT. The CESTAT in CUSAA 27/2022 as well as CUSAA 126/2022 had taken an identical view. It has principally held that once the importer concedes to the reassessment undertaken by the proper officer in terms of Section 17(4) and gives up its right to question

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

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

3) For the purposes of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under Section 148, need

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

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

reassessment in the facts of the 3 AO 4 Act 5 ROI This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:13:56 ITA 25/2022 Page 3

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

reassessment in the facts of the 3 AO 4 Act 5 ROI This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:13:56 ITA 25/2022 Page 3

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

3 years before the date of revising order. 14. The effect of breach of obligation under Section 182 by the assessee vis-à-vis the power of the authority to revise the Annual 31 Valuation does not appear to be in issue in Sahujain (supra). Therefore, Sahujain (supra) cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition that even

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

3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 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

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGAM LTD.

In the result, this Income Tax Appeal is allowed, setting

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. 4. The first appellate authority, after a detailed discussion of the relevant provisions, as well as the ITA NO. 11 OF 2018 -4- adjustment of various Rules and Tribunals, allowed the Appeal in part. 5. As per the said order

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

Section 148A(b) of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that no notice to show cause why jurisdiction of reassessment be not assumed had ever been served upon the writ petitioner. It was in the aforesaid context that we had granted time to Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents, to obtain instructions. This

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

3. In the present case, the assessing officer has not relied on any new material which has come to light after the initial assessment on 31.12.2011. Even as regards the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Assessing Officer did not form a decision on the basis of any fresh or new material. Rather, the same material Digitally

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

reassessment proceedings cannot be commenced. The assessee once again requested the assessing officer not to take any adverse view without providing the adverse finding/material in support of the allegation in the reasons for reopening and without providing effective opportunity of rebuttal as the assessee had also sought for permission to cross-examine the concerned persons who are stated to have