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

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

14. The issue which we have to decide is, can these approvals be treated as fulfilling the mandate of provisions of section 153 D of the Act vis - a- vis legislative intent of the said section in the statute. Section 153 D of the Act reads as under : “No order of assessment or reassessment

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

section shall be commenced after the lapse of three years from the date on which such sum becomes due.” The Issue of revising the annual valuation of a property and consequently the property tax payable thereon and the issue of recovery of such tax may be different. However, we need not delve into the said issue in the present judgment

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

14 of 99 FA No. 5 of 2023 Smti. Ilinda Mawrie D/o (L) D. Wankhar :::Appellant -Vs- Collector, Ri – Bhoi District, Nongpoh :::Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: In FA No. 1 of 2022 For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Sen, GA with Ms. R. Colney, GA. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. V.K. Jindal

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

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

reassessing the income under section 147 of the Act would not arise". 33. In Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Limited (supra), it was held that ".. . the impugned notices must also be set aside as the Assessing Officer had no reason to believe that the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years had escaped assessment. Concededly, the Assessing Officer

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

reassessing the income under section 147 of the Act would not arise". 33. In Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Limited (supra), it was held that ".. . the impugned notices must also be set aside as the Assessing Officer had no reason to believe that the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years had escaped assessment. Concededly, the Assessing Officer

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 26/2024 & CM APPL. 66/2024 KOSI AVIATION LEASING LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SKY AIRCRAFT INDIAN ONE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Ms. Disha Jham & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya

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