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

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

151 (SC) 3 (2001) 165 CTR (All) 565 = (2000) 246 ITR 560 (All) 4 (2000) 164 CTR (Bom) 273 = (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom) = (2000) 113 TAXMAN 386 (Bom) 12 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee the entire annulment of assessment cannot be justified and even if certain wrong

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

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

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

68 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 69 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 70 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 71 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 72 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 73 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 74 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 75 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 76 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 77 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 78 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 79 of 2022, W.P.O

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent