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

13 of 99 FA No. 2 of 2023 Smti. Susan M. Wahlang since deceased Substituted by Smti. Rhoda Angela Wahlang vide order dated 30/09/2011 passed by Special Judicial Officer, Shillong :::Appellant -Vs- Collector, Ri – Bhoi District, Nongpoh :::Respondent FA No. 3 of 2023 Smti. Soridian Dohtdong, since deceased Substituted by her grand-daughter Smti. Annebolyne Dohtdong vide order dated 13/10/2022

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

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

1) of section 153 B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub- section (12) of section

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

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 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

13. The sheet anchor of the case of the petitioners is the decision in Sahujain (supra) wherein the vires of second proviso to Section 179 (2) (d) of the Act as well as the assessment made by the authority was challenged. The Hon’ble Division Bench after noticing the provision laid down under Section 573 observed that under second proviso

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