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

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

38 of 99 The learned counsel has gone on to argue that the observations in the case cited by the respondents are incorrect, in view of a 3-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority reported in (2004) 10 SCC 745 (para 10) wherein it has been held that the Collector

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

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

38. In paragraph 24(c) of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Appellate Tribunal has held that Section 8(3) lays down a time frame for completion of the investigation. We are of the considered view that this constitutes an incorrect reading of the provision by the learned Appellate Tribunal. Section 8(3) of the PMLA reads as follows

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

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

Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Learned CMM. ii) On 21.12.2021 the Detenus made a representation to the Detaining Authority, submitting that a large number of documents furnished to them were illegible and many other documents that had been relied upon and referred to were not furnished, communicated and/or

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

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

38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord Chancellor Cottenham heard the appeal against an order

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