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

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

35,06,300=00 1991-92 23,69,02,210=00 1992-93 5,94,40,840=00 g) Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on various grounds including the validity of reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide its order upheld the order passed

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

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

1. These set of appeals arise out of a common order handed out by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“Tribunal”] dated 08 February 2023 and pose the following questions of law for our consideration: - “I . Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee

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

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

iv) Goan Real Estate v. UOI, reported at (2010) 5 SCC 388, paragraphs 31. 10. Learned Advocate, with reference to Section 174 of the KMC Act, submitted that the appellants did not indicate before the Hearing Officer what would be the “reasonable rent” that should be considered by the Hearing Officer. The appellants/assesses never disputed the quantum of rent