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

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

41 + ITA 640/2023 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 13/08/2024 at 12:35:03 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL - II, NEW DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh

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

41. Smti. Mebeldalis Khyriemmujat :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.54/ (deceased) Substituted by her Claimant No. 59 daughter Smti. Teidalin Khyriemmujat Page 12 of 99 42. Smti. Ruthsila Synjri :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.55/ Claimant No. 60 43. Smti. Rodiala Synjri :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.56/ Claimant No. 61 44. Shri. Berington Nongspung :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.57/ Claimant No. 62 45. Smti. Rijaintia Shabong :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.59/ Claimant

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

41. In so far as the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Abdul Halim Gaznavi Molla & Ors., (Supra), is concerned, the same was not concerned with Section 179(2)of the KMC Act, 1980. What that decision laid down is that Section 573 of the KMC Act cannot have any application as regards recovery

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