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

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

Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression “approved” says nothing. It is not as if the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing

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

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

27. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative as well as learned Departmental Representative and considered the relevant material on record. The first objection by the learned Authorised Representative is that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and in the 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

27. We adopt the same procedure. The commissioner can only have the power to revise valuation within a reasonable period of time. In the case of Santosh kumar Shivgonda Patil and Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Ors. reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352 the Supreme Court computed reasonable time in the subject Act to be three years. In Section

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

27. Shri. Arbat Kurbah (deceased) :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.39/ Substituted by his son namely Claimant No. 43 Shri. Phlanroy Kharthangmaw 28. Smti. Plin Ramshon (deceased) :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.41/ Substituted by her son Claimant No. 45 Shri. Peaceful Ramshon 29. Smti. Endris Shadap :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.42/ Claimant No. 46 30. Smti. Krintina Mukhim :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.43/ Claimant No. 47 31. Smti. Diwti

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

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

27,00,000 has escaped assessment as defined by section 147 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, this is a fit case for the issuance of the notice under section 148." 29.3 The court was not inclined to interfere in the above circumstances in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. A careful perusal of the above reasons

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

27,00,000 has escaped assessment as defined by section 147 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, this is a fit case for the issuance of the notice under section 148." 29.3 The court was not inclined to interfere in the above circumstances in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. A careful perusal of the above reasons

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

27 April 2022. One of the principal grounds of challenge was a failure on the part of the respondents to have complied with the procedure prescribed under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that no notice to show cause why jurisdiction of reassessment

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