PRINCIPAL COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR RANGE vs. M/S. TATA SPONGE IRON LTD.

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

15 of 137 relinquishing its right to receive a speaking order as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the Act. 4. Post the BoE being reassessed

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

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

Section 151 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has commended for our consideration the decision of the Court in Capital Broadways (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3) Delhi8 to contend that the reasons as recorded by the PCIT, while according approval, would clearly establish that the same lacked an independent evaluation of whether reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

Section 151 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has commended for our consideration the decision of the Court in Capital Broadways (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3) Delhi8 to contend that the reasons as recorded by the PCIT, while according approval, would clearly establish that the same lacked an independent evaluation of whether 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

15. In Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat & others (1987) 1 SCC 213 (vide paragraph 18) this Court observed:- "18. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said a long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides

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

15 of 99 i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1. FA No. 1 of 2022, has been preferred by the appellant Collector, Ri Bhoi District, against the judgment and order dated 17.03.2020, passed by the Court of the Special Judicial Officer, Ri Bhoi District

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

reassessment proceedings should be redone from the state of show cause notice as the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment has to be decided and to decide the same, the assessee should raise such objection before the very same authority. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the orders impugned in the writ petition and remand

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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. HARSHAD RAI MEHTA

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

15:56 +0530 2 Bhiku Ram Jain Aged About 56 Years) R/o. Shop No. 5, Annapurna Complex, Near Telghani Over Bridge, Samta Colony, Raipur Tahsil District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Union Of India Secretary, Central Board Of Director Taxes North Block, New Delhi. 2. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Pr. Commissioner