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

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

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such

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

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

36 to 53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 593/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-02 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC with Mr. Anmol Jagga, Adv. versus M/S MDLR HOTELS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gautam Jain, Mr. Shaantanu Jain

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

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

1) at the declared income of Rs. 4,200. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that the amount of such transactions particularly that of Rs. 5,00,000 (as mentioned above) has escaped the assessment within the meaning of the proviso to section 147 and clause (b) to Explanation 2 of this section. Submitted

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

1) at the declared income of Rs. 4,200. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that the amount of such transactions particularly that of Rs. 5,00,000 (as mentioned above) has escaped the assessment within the meaning of the proviso to section 147 and clause (b) to Explanation 2 of this section. Submitted

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

1 SCC 213 (vide paragraph 18) this Court observed:- "18. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said a long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it." 16. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana

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

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

36 Years, Jeevan Bima Marg Pandri Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur 492004, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 2. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Tax Circle-1 (1) Aaykar Bhawan, Central Revenue