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

13 of 2021. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced as under:- “151. Sanction for issue of notice.—(1) No notice shall be issued under Section 148 by an Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

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

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

13:56 ITA 25/2022 Page 8 of 16 9. In our considered opinion, the reasoning as assigned by the Tribunal is clearly untenable. Firstly, the question of whether the power to reassess was rightly and justifiably invoked, could not have been tested basis the ultimate order of assessment that came to be drawn. What the Tribunal needed to principally bear

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

13:56 ITA 25/2022 Page 8 of 16 9. In our considered opinion, the reasoning as assigned by the Tribunal is clearly untenable. Firstly, the question of whether the power to reassess was rightly and justifiably invoked, could not have been tested basis the ultimate order of assessment that came to be drawn. What the Tribunal needed to principally bear

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

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

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

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 as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

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 as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar