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

Section 148 by the AO. 10. Insofar as the issue of borrowed satisfaction is concerned and when the invocation of the reassessment power could be said to be unjustified, we deem it apposite to allude to the following observations as appearing in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order

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 power could be said to be unjustified, we deem it apposite to allude to the following observations as appearing in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order

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

24 his decision null and void. Such an error in the decision is to be corrected by the appellate authority. Admittedly a statutory appeal is available to an aggrieved assessee in respect of enhanced annual valuation of a premises assessed by the Hearing Officer. The case of Anisminic Ltd, v. Foreign Compensation Commission, (Supra) does not come

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

24. Smti. Skerina Kharkongor :::Cross Objector/Respondent No. 31/ (deceased) Substituted by her Claimant No. 33 daughter Smti. Trasibon Kharkongor 25. Smti. Evangeline Sutnga :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.33/ Claimant No. 35 26. Smti. Stied Dkhar :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.35/ Claimant No. 38 27. Shri. Arbat Kurbah (deceased) :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.39/ Substituted by his son namely Claimant No. 43 Shri. Phlanroy Kharthangmaw 28. Smti

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

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

24 of 2024  Shree Shivam Attires Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Satish Mantri S/o Shri Chandmal Mantri, Aged About 56 Years, F-502, Kool Homes, Daldal Seoni Road, Mowa, Raipur, Tehsil And District-Raipur- 492004 (C.G.) Office Address- Shree Shivam Shopping Mall, Station Road, Santrabadi, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 491001. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Central

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 142(1) of the Act dated 2nd January, 2022. We note that the said objection is also a very elaborate objection. 6 In the said objection/reply the assessee has reiterated its earlier stand taken in its objection dated 21st December, 2021. Once again the assessee has reiterated that the information sought for by them has not been provided till

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