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

13. The sheet anchor of the case of the petitioners is the decision in Sahujain (supra) wherein the vires of second proviso to Section 179 (2) (d) of the Act as well as the assessment made by the authority was challenged. The Hon’ble Division Bench after noticing the provision laid down under Section 573 observed that under second proviso

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

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

reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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 in cases where search has been conducted. Thus

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

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

13:56 ITA 25/2022 Page 2 of 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

13:56 ITA 25/2022 Page 2 of 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

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

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

REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.01.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BENGALURU, FOR THE TAX PERIOD OF APRIL-06 TO MARCH -07, APRIL -07 TO MARCH -08, APRIL-08 TO MARCH-09 AND APRIL-09 TO JUNE-09. THIS STRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM

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 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

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