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

11 of 99 (Substituted vide Court’s order dated 03/10/2024 passed in MC (CRAPPL) No. 1 of 2024) 33. Smti. Iarly Susngi :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.47/ Claimant No. 51 34. Smti. Phian Kharthangmaw :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.48/ (deceased) Substituted by her Claimant No. 52 daughter Smti. Shrar Kharthangmaw 35. Smti. Hinsila Rymshon :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.49/ Claimant No. 53 36. Smti. Cinobia Mary

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

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

11. Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression “approved” says nothing. It is not as if the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has to record elaborate reasons

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

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

5], Pune’, decided on 30.03.2012. However, learned Counsel was not having the original Manual of Office Procedure for our perusal. 6. Section 153D of the Act relevant for our purposes is quoted below for ready reference: “153D.: Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition. Date of Judgment 28-06-2018, ITA No.38/2017 Gopal S. Pandit

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

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

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 to the Additional Commissioner of Income- tax, Range- 12, New Delhi for approval to issue notice under section 148 for the assessment year 1997-98, if approved." This is a digitally

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

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 to the Additional Commissioner of Income- tax, Range- 12, New Delhi for approval to issue notice under section 148 for the assessment year 1997-98, if approved." This is a digitally

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

5 SCC 747 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

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

5 SCC 747 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

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

5 SCC 345 and Varimadugu OBI Reddy v. B. Sreenivasuly & Ors., reported at (2023) 2 SCC 168, and held that it is more than a settled legal position of law that the High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy is available. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal

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

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 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

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

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