PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

Section 148 by the AO. 10. Insofar as the issue of borrowed satisfaction is concerned and when the invocation of the reassessment

NEELACHAL I.NIGAM L. vs. ASST.COMNR.OF I.TAX

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

reassess such income and AO should have the reason to believe and sub-section (2) of Section 148 provides that

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. HARSHAD RAI MEHTA

Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

reassessment proceedings made by the revenue and observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Steel (supra) the orders issued under Section 148

PRINCIPAL COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. BOUDH CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.

In the result, the appeal (APO/2/2023) is allowed and

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 5Th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Pranit Bag Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Adv. ...For The Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Intra-Court Appeal By The Writ Petitioner Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th November, 2022 In Wpo/2571/2022. The Appellant Had Filed The Writ Petition Challenging An Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) & The Consequential Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. The Learned Single Bench Dismissed The Writ Petition On The Ground That The Order Has Not Been Passed By An

148 of the Act. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the order has not been passed by an 2 authority having lack of inherent jurisdiction nor the order falls within the category of cases where the authority concerned has committed an apparent violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the learned writ Court observed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. UTKAL MARINE PRIMARY FISH PRODUCTION AND MARKETING CO. OP. SOCIETY LTD.,JAGATSINGHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th August, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. ..For The Appellant. Mr.Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr.Anurag Roy, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Intra-Court Appeal By The Writ Petitioner Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8Th June, 2023 In Wpo No. 1120 Of 2023. The Appellant Had Filed The Writ Petition Challenging An Order Passed By The Respondent Assessing Officer Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act), Dated 31St March, 2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Writ Petition Has Been Dismissed By The Learned Single Bench On The Ground That The Assessee Has Ample

148 of the Act, dated 31st March, 2023. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Learned Single Judge was right in not interfering with the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 4 In the result, the appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to the assessee to raise and canvass

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

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity); (b) to rescind the said notice dated March 31, 2021 and/or purported order dated March 31, 2022 as being without jurisdiction including the demand 2 for penalty; (c) to prohibit the respondents from giving effect to the said notice/order; and (d) for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

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 the procedure prescribed under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that no notice to show cause why jurisdiction of reassessment

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