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

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

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

1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (12) of Section 144BA

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

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

reassessment in the facts of the 3 AO 4 Act 5 ROI This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:13:56 ITA 25/2022 Page 3

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

reassessment in the facts of the 3 AO 4 Act 5 ROI This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:13:56 ITA 25/2022 Page 3

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

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

1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA.” 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

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 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 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

3 clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the appellant to avail the statutory and alternative remedy by way of appeal in accordance with law. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal. We have elaborately heard Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned senior standing counsel assisted by Ms. Swapna Das, learned

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

1. This writ petition questions the validity of the order passed under Section 148A(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

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

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. Judgment prepared in separate sheets is delivered and pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and the order is passed accordingly as follows:- 3. In the present case, the assessing officer has not relied