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

Section 152 CPC, to the extent of award of solatium. 2. FA Nos. 1 and 5 of 2023, has been preferred by individual land owners namely Smti Bertilin Kharbuli, respondent No. 58/claimant No. 63, and Smti Hinda Mawrie, respondent No. 8/claimant No. 9, against the Page 16 of 99 same impugned judgment and order dated 17.03.2020, whereby the learned

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

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

1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under Section 148, need not issue such notice himself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA.” 3. Further in the matter of Deepak Steel and Power Limited vs. Central 8 Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. reported in 305 Taxman 169 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the order passed under Section

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

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

1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2022 PASSED IN STA NO.1916 TO 1954/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE R - 2 - STRP No. 39 of 2023 TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2014 PASSED IN NO.KET-AP/20 TO 58/09-10 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER

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

Section 142(1) of the Act dated 2nd January, 2022. We note that the said objection is also a very elaborate objection. 6 In the said objection/reply the assessee has reiterated its earlier stand taken in its objection dated 21st December, 2021. Once again the assessee has reiterated that the information sought for by them has not been provided till

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

5 SCC 345 and Varimadugu OBI Reddy v. B. Sreenivasuly & Ors., reported at (2023) 2 SCC 168, and held that it is more than a settled legal position of law that the High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy is available. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

1. This writ petition questions the validity of the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] as well as the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 27 April 2022. One of the principal grounds of challenge was a failure on the part of the respondents to have complied with