COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

17 of 171 Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 293/2007 JAGBIR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, 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

17 of 171 Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 293/2007 JAGBIR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anuroop, Mr. Gaurav Bidhuri, 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

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

17. On behalf of the land owners which includes respondents, cross-objectors and appellants, Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel submits that the land owners had filed the Reference Petition dated 22.09.2003, under Section 18 of the LA Act, and had prayed for the actual measurement of the land, demarcation of the boundaries, market price of the land

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

BISWAJIT BEHERA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), BBSR

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

68 of the Act in the hands of ultimate company and separate addition in the hands of investor would lead to double taxation. V. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in holding non-application of mind on the part of Addl. CIT without calling the details of assessments

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

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

17. As to the tests of the likelihood of bias what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. The proper approach for the Judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, however, honestly, “Am I biased?”; but to look at the mind of the party before

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-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