PRINCIPAL COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR RANGE vs. M/S. TATA SPONGE IRON LTD.

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

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals

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

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 19613, having observed as follows:- “7. We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the dispute in the aforesaid three assessment years relates to addition of investments made on account of share capital and share premium by two entities with

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

15) also relied on a judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel v. State of Maharashtra which held thus: “[T]hat the sub-section clearly makes the contents of the report of Public Analyst admissible in evidence and the prosecution cannot fail solely on the ground that the Public Analyst had not been examined

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-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

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

15 of 171 + LA.APP. 1235/2008, CM APPL. 6801/2017 & 16070/2024 SURYA PRAKASH & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

15 of 171 + LA.APP. 1235/2008, CM APPL. 6801/2017 & 16070/2024 SURYA PRAKASH & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma

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

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

15 of 31 statute. Consequently, the learned Appellate Tribunal‟s further conclusions based on this mis-interpretation, including its understanding of the amended provisions of the PMLA, are also erroneous. 43. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Impugned Judgment are the resultant conclusions based on the finding of the learned Appellate Tribunal that Section 8(3) prescribes a time

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

68, 75 to 89, 93 to 100 & 105 to 110 3. Statement of Priyanka Razdan before I/Tax Deptt 135, 137 to 139, 141 to 150, 155, 156, 166, Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:02.05.2022 16:00:05 Signature Not Verified W.P. (CRL.) 72/2022 & W.P. (CRL.) 73/2022 Page 15 of 49 167, 170 to 172 9. Statement of Sanjeev

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

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

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. No. 35 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 39 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 44 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 49 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 68 of 2022, W.P.O