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

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

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability- These amendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007." 16. The Legislative intent is clear from the above, in as much as, prior to the insertion of Sec. 153D of the Act, there was no provision for taking approval in cases of assessment and reassessment

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

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

16 applied his mind while according sanction for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act when all relevant material was before him?” 2. The principal question which stands posited for our consideration is whether the Assessing Officer3 was justified in invoking Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19614 basis the report which had been received from

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

16 applied his mind while according sanction for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act when all relevant material was before him?” 2. The principal question which stands posited for our consideration is whether the Assessing Officer3 was justified in invoking Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19614 basis the report which had been received from

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

16. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd (2003) 2 SCC 111 (vide paragraph 59), this Court observed:- 36 "59….. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision." 38. As held by the learned Single Judge and rightly

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

Section 152 CPC, to the extent of award of solatium. 2. FA Nos. 1 and 5 of 2023, has been preferred by individual land owners namely Smti Bertilin Kharbuli, respondent No. 58/claimant No. 63, and Smti Hinda Mawrie, respondent No. 8/claimant No. 9, against the Page 16 of 99 same impugned judgment and order dated 17.03.2020, whereby the learned

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

reassessment proceedings, has not assigned any reasons to substantiate such conclusion. Therefore, we will be justified in holding that such conclusion arrived at by the learned writ court without assigning any reason is not tenable. The core issue in the instant appeal is whether there has been violation of principles of natural justice. The proceedings commenced by issuance of notice

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