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

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

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

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

2 , New Delhi vis- a - vis, each and every proposal made by the DCIT, Central Circle - 15 , New Delhi. 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

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

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

2 of this section. Submitted to the Additional Commissioner of Income- tax, Range- 12, New Delhi for approval to issue notice under section 148 for the assessment year 1997-98, if approved." 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 shown above

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

2 of this section. Submitted to the Additional Commissioner of Income- tax, Range- 12, New Delhi for approval to issue notice under section 148 for the assessment year 1997-98, if approved." 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 shown above

PRINCIPAL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S SHREE METALIKS LIMITED, KEONJHAR

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

SECTION 65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2022 PASSED IN STA NO.1916 TO 1954/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE R - 2 - STRP No. 39 of 2023 TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2014 PASSED IN NO.KET-AP/20 TO 58/09-10 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.

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

2. The learned Counsel for the Assessee has suggested the following four substantial questions of law in the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the Appellant. Date of Judgment 28-06-2018, ITA No.38/2017 Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another . 3/14 I. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Appellate Tribunal was correct

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS SLTD.

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

Section 40(a)(ia), the Assessing Officer did not form a decision on the basis of any fresh or new material. Rather, the same material Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2024 17:11:20 Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 2 has been

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

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

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

2 opportunity to put forth all their contentions in the reopening proceedings pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. As could be seen from the relevant documents filed in the stay petition, a notice dated 14th March, 2023 was issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, wherein a purchase of immovable property effected by the assessee

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

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 that the order impugned in the writ petition passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is neither a final assessment nor a demand

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

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

2. With regard to notices issued for assessment year 2015-16, in the matter of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) considered before the Honb’le Supreme Court in para 19(f) as under :- “19 f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after

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

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (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

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGAM LTD.

In the result, this Income Tax Appeal is allowed, setting

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

2. The appellant was engaged in the business of aqua farm culture and sale of its proceeds. Until 2007, the company functioned in the name of 'M/s.Victory Aqua Farm Limited' and later changed its name to 'M/s.Kings Infra Ventures Limited' and ventured into construction business. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment years 2011-12, disclosing