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

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

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT., AGA) THIS STRP FILED UNDER 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

PRINCIPAL COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR RANGE vs. M/S. TATA SPONGE IRON LTD.

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

3 BoE 4 NIDB Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 15 of 137 relinquishing its right to receive a speaking order as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the Act. 4. Post the BoE being reassessed

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

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

3) For the purposes of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under Section 148, need

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 151 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has commended for our consideration the decision of the Court in Capital Broadways (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3) Delhi8 to contend that the reasons as recorded by the PCIT, while according approval, would clearly establish that the same lacked an independent evaluation of whether reassessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

Section 151 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has commended for our consideration the decision of the Court in Capital Broadways (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(3) Delhi8 to contend that the reasons as recorded by the PCIT, while according approval, would clearly establish that the same lacked an independent evaluation of whether 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

3 years before the date of revising order. 14. The effect of breach of obligation under Section 182 by the assessee vis-à-vis the power of the authority to revise the Annual 31 Valuation does not appear to be in issue in Sahujain (supra). Therefore, Sahujain (supra) cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition that even

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

3 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the very same issue is the reason assigned for reopening the assessment by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Further it is contended that the reopening of the assessment is clear case of change of opinion apart from the fact that the Assessing Officer did not conduct

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. 4. The first appellate authority, after a detailed discussion of the relevant provisions, as well as the ITA NO. 11 OF 2018 -4- adjustment of various Rules and Tribunals, allowed the Appeal in part. 5. As per the said order

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

reassessment of the compensation on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that is stated to be on record. 3. FA No. 2 of 2023, is filed by Smti Susan M. Wahlang (deceased), respondent No. 36/claimant No. 39, is for enhancement of the rates and compensation for severance of land. 4. FA No. 3 of 2023, is filed

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

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 land of posh colonies such

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

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 land of posh colonies such

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

3 assessment authority who can proceed with the matter. The issue which was subject matter of the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act is concerning the purchase of an immoveable property and the valuation of the property as well. Apart from that, there was an allegation that the assessee has not filed his income

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

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

3. Further in the matter of Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. Central 8 Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. reported in 305 Taxman 169 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the order passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act, 1961”) and notices issued under Section

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

3. In the present case, the assessing officer has not relied on any new material which has come to light after the initial assessment on 31.12.2011. Even as regards the issue of disallowance under 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

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