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

NEELACHAL I.NIGAM L. vs. ASST.COMNR.OF I.TAX

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

5 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters warrant of authorisation issued by the DIT (Inv.) under Section 132A of the IT Act. On 2-3-1995 statement of J.K. Jain was recorded by the DDIT (Inv.) under Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special

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

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

5. — 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 Further the report submitted by him under Section 151(2) does not mention any reason for coming

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

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

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- 12, New Delhi for approval to issue notice under section 148 for the assessment year 1997-98, if approved." This is a digitally

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

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- 12, New Delhi for approval to issue notice under section 148 for the assessment year 1997-98, if approved." This is a digitally

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

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

2. With regard to notices issued for assessment year 2015-16, in the matter of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) considered before the Honb’le Supreme Court in para 19(f) as under :- “19 f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after

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

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

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

2. The learned Counsel for the Assessee has suggested the following four substantial questions of law in the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the Appellant. Date of Judgment 28-06-2018, ITA No.38/2017 Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another . 3/14 I. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Appellate Tribunal was correct

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

2 authority having lack of inherent jurisdiction nor the order falls within the category of cases where the authority concerned has committed an apparent violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the learned writ Court observed that the order impugned in the writ petition passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is neither a final assessment nor a demand

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that no notice to show cause why jurisdiction of 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

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

2 (2010) 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

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

2 (2010) 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

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

reassessment proceedings, has not assigned any reasons to substantiate such conclusion. Therefore, we will be justified in holding that such conclusion arrived at by the learned writ court without assigning any reason is not tenable. The core issue in the instant appeal is whether there has been violation of principles of natural justice. The proceedings commenced by issuance of notice

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

2. The appellant was engaged in the business of aqua farm culture and sale of its proceeds. Until 2007, the company functioned in the name of 'M/s.Victory Aqua Farm Limited' and later changed its name to 'M/s.Kings Infra Ventures Limited' and ventured into construction business. The appellant filed its return of income for the assessment years 2011-12, disclosing