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

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, Ri – Bhoi District, Nongpoh :::Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Page

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

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

46 + ITA 645/2023 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-H, NEW DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC with Mr. Anmol Jagga, Adv. versus This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning

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