PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

68 of the Act at the hands of the assessee company is the statement recorded from one, Mr. Praveen Kumar Shastri, stated to be the director of Kandhari group of companies. On a perusal of the observations made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, it can be seen that in the statement recorded, 3 Act This

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

10 of 171 versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Mr. Sami Sameer Siddiqui, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

10 of 171 versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu and Mr. Sami Sameer Siddiqui, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocates Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate

M/S.SHEETAL REAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions of law

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

Section 372A of the Companies Acct, 1956 and the investments were with a long-term view which is evident from the fact that during the financial year in question the assessee has earned Rs. 406.51 lakhs as capital gain from investment activities out of which Rs. 432.09 lakhs was long-term capital gain. Further, the assessee stated that during

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. INDRANI PATNAIK

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

10. There is no dispute that the complaint is based on ECIR dated 17th March, 2017 in which the respondent was shown as one of the accused. Moreover, clause (a) will apply during the continuation of the proceedings relating to an offence under the PMLA in a Court. There is no dispute that when an order under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.JAGANNATH CHAUDHURY

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

68 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 340/COCH/2016 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM. BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX, RESPONDENT: M/S. SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD 1ST FLOOR, AMAL JYOTHI BUILDING, CATHEDRAL ROAD, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686 507. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SMT.G.MINI OTHER PRESENT: ADV NAVNEETH N NATH THIS INCOME

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S. SERAJUDDIN AND CO.

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

10 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 11 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 12 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 13 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 14 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 15 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 19 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 21 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 23 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 24 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 33 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 34 of 2022, W.P.O

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

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

23 (2012) 4 SCC 653 40 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 55. The courts have applied the tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion. These doctrines were discussed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580] The Court found that “real likelihood” and “reasonable suspicion” were terms really inconsistent with

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S. M.M. ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS

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

23 premises allegedly belonging to the Detenu No. 1 and persons allegedly associated with him. Thereupon, a Statement (Annexure P-4) of the Detenu No.1 was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the 11.10.2021, wherein the Detenu No. 1 admittedly stated that he had studied only till the VIII standard and therefore, expressed his volition