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

reassessment of the compensation on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that is stated to be on record. 3. FA No. 2 of 2023, is filed by Smti Susan M. Wahlang (deceased), respondent No. 36/claimant No. 39, is for enhancement of the rates and compensation for severance of land. 4. FA No. 3 of 2023, is filed

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

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

6 ITA. No . 4061/ Mum/2012 section 132 or requisition is made under section 132 A does not provide for any approval for such assessment. 50.2 A new section 153D has been inserted to provide that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner except with the previous approval

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

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

1. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT MODIFYING THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Date of Judgment 28-06-2018, ITA No.38/2017 Gopal S. Pandit Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax & another . 2/14 DATED 27.07.2016 IN ITA NO.1197/BANG/2013 AND DIRECT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER

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

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

6 of 16 “8.5. The statement of Shri Himanshu Verma is also filed on record which did not find mention if M/s. Shubh Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., as mentioned in the reasons belong to Shri Himanshu Verma. There is no investor exist in the name of M/s. Management Services Pvt. Ltd., and no addition in respect of the same company have

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

6 of 16 “8.5. The statement of Shri Himanshu Verma is also filed on record which did not find mention if M/s. Shubh Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., as mentioned in the reasons belong to Shri Himanshu Verma. There is no investor exist in the name of M/s. Management Services Pvt. Ltd., and no addition in respect of the same company have

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

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

6 District Durg (C.G.) 490001 5. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Through- Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, North Block, New Delhi. --- Respondent(s) WPT No. 157 of 2023  M/s Harshaa Rice Mills Private Limited A Company Incorporated Under Companies Act, 2013, Through Its Director Shri Krishna Kumar Kejriwal, S/o Shree Lal Kejriwal, Aged About 66 Years, Registered Office

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

6 years limitation in that section. 16. Learned Advocate finally submitted that otherwise also the present appeal has become academic in view of the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner during the pendency of the appeal, applied under Unit Area Assessment (U.A.A.) System for determination of the annual valuation for the period 1/2007-2018 and accepted the annual valuation

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

c) to prohibit the respondents from giving effect to the said notice/order; and (d) for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the said notices as also the consequential penalty notices. The notice/order impugned in the writ petition was challenged mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, erroneous, illegal, invalid and perverse and, consequently

KANAK BHANJ DEO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,BBSR

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

C) 26/2024 & CM APPL. 66/2024 KOSI AVIATION LEASING LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SKY AIRCRAFT INDIAN ONE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Ms. Disha Jham & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC & Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA