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

1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (12) of Section 144BA.” 7

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

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

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

reassessment in the facts of the 3 AO 4 Act 5 ROI 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 17/03/2025 at 11:13:56 ITA 25/2022 Page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

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

reassessment in the facts of the 3 AO 4 Act 5 ROI 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 17/03/2025 at 11:13:56 ITA 25/2022 Page

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. HARSHAD RAI MEHTA

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

7 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, (Department Of Revenue), No. 137, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur, Having His Office At New C.R. Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur Having His Office At New C.R. Building Civil

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

7, 2019 by introducing a concept of 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