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

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

45,24,370 have been deleted based on the flawed conclusion that no additions were made in the hands of the investors amounting to Rs. 24,95,65,027 without analysing or bringing on record any material with respect to the same in respect of each of the assessee covered in this batch of appeals and also ignoring the fact

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

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

45,00,000/- has escaped assessment relevant to A.Y.2010-11. Thus, the same is to be brought to tax under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act 1961. Moreover, as the case pertains to a period beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year, for issuing the notice u/s 148, necessary approval/sanction may kindly be accorded by the Pr. Commissioner

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

45,00,000/- has escaped assessment relevant to A.Y.2010-11. Thus, the same is to be brought to tax under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act 1961. Moreover, as the case pertains to a period beyond four years from the end of relevant assessment year, for issuing the notice u/s 148, necessary approval/sanction may kindly be accorded by the Pr. Commissioner

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

45. Smti. Rijaintia Shabong :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.59/ Claimant No. 66 46. Smti. Ai Ridian Shadap :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.60/ Claimant No. 67 47. Smti. Judy Dkhar :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.61/ D/o (L) Sorbo Mohon Swer Claimant No. 68 -Vs- Collector, Ri – Bhoi District, Nongpoh, Meghalaya ::: Opposite Party/Appellant ____________________________________________________________ FA No. 1 of 2023 Smti. Bartilin Kharbuli D/o (L) K. Kharbynepet :::Appellant -Vs- Collector

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

section shall be commenced after the lapse of three years from the date on which such sum becomes due.” The Issue of revising the annual valuation of a property and consequently the property tax payable thereon and the issue of recovery of such tax may be different. However, we need not delve into the said issue in the present judgment

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