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

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

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

D of the Act by mentioning as under: "The above draft orders, as proposed, are hereby accorded approval with the direction to ensure that the orders are passed well before limitation period. Further, copies of final orders so passed be sent to this office for record." 20. In our considered opinion, there is no whisper of any seized material sent

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

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

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and could

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

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

D E R % 28.02.2025 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 seeks to impugn the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 dated 07 November 2019. We had, after hearing learned counsels for the respective parties, admitted this appeal by our order dated 30 January 2024 on the following questions of law:- “(a) Whether examination and analysis of information received

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

D E R % 28.02.2025 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax1 seeks to impugn the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 dated 07 November 2019. We had, after hearing learned counsels for the respective parties, admitted this appeal by our order dated 30 January 2024 on the following questions of law:- “(a) Whether examination and analysis of information received

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] as well as the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 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

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

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

D G M E N T Mr. R.Chandrashekar, Adv. for Appellant - Assessee Mr. Jeevan R. Neeralgi, Adv. for Respondents – Revenue The Assessee – Gopal S. Pandit, Proprietor - Pandit Developers, Mangalore, has filed this Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for short], raising the purported substantial questions of law arising from the Order of learned Income

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari