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

4 of 2023 FA No. 5 of 2023 For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S. Rana, Adv. Ms. B. Jyrwa, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, GA with Ms. R. Colney, GA. Page 15 of 99 i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press

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

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

4[5], Pune’, decided on 30.03.2012. However, learned Counsel was not having the original Manual of Office Procedure for our perusal. 6. Section 153D of the Act relevant for our purposes is quoted below for ready reference: “153D.: Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition. Date of Judgment 28-06-2018, ITA No.38/2017 Gopal S. Pandit

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

5 SCC 747 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

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

5 SCC 747 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

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

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

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 to the Additional Commissioner of Income- tax, Range

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

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 to the Additional Commissioner of Income- tax, Range

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

4) with Section 185 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for the periods 3/2001-02, 2/2007-08, 4/2008-09 and 2/2013-14 fixing Annual Valuation Rs. 1,21,180/-, Rs. 1,36,190/-, Rs. 8,31,380/- and Rs. 8,36,470/- respectively which are too high, arbitrary and devoid from proper assessment. Accordingly KMC tax is too high and devoid from proper

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

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

reassessment under Section 148 of the Act. The said approval cannot be granted in a mechanical manner as it acts as a linkage between the facts considered and conclusion reached. In the instant case, merely appending the phrase “Yes” does not appropriately align with the mandate of Section 151 of the Act as it fails to set out any degree

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

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

4. Taking into consideration the reassessment proceedings made by the revenue and observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Steel (supra) the orders issued under Section 148 (A)(d) Act, 1961 and notices issued under Section 148 of Act, 1961 are hereby quashed. 5

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

5 ii. The report uploaded by the JCIT (OSD), Central Circule-5(4), Mumbai vide no.Mum.JCIT/5(4)/Info Sharing/Wadhwa Group/20-21 dt 19.03.2021. iii. The copy of the evidence of granting such alleged loan by the assessee with collaborative documents, if any, you have. iv. Copy of any other document(s) gathered by the JCIT (OSD) Mumbai or you to corroborate your

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

4 proceedings. The only ground which was raised by the assessee was that the information based on which reopening proceedings were initiated cannot be termed as ‘new information’. In support of his contention, learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Alliance Filaments Ltd. vs. Assistant

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

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

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 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

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

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

REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.01.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BENGALURU, FOR THE TAX PERIOD OF APRIL-06 TO MARCH -07, APRIL -07 TO MARCH -08, APRIL-08 TO MARCH-09 AND APRIL-09 TO JUNE-09. THIS STRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM