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

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

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

68, on the date on which [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [PROVIDED that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel

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

M/S.BHASKAR TRADERS vs. ASST.COMMKNR.OF INCOME TAX,BERHAMPUR

The appeals are dismissed

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

68, and, (b) the amounts secured as loan were treated as “deemed dividend” by the Assessing Officer (AO). Aggrieved, the assessee approached the CIT(A), who deleted the amounts brought to tax. Revenue unsuccessfully appealed the ITAT. The Revenue urges that the additions made on account of income from undisclosed sources i.e. by way of suspect credits claimed

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

20. Shri. Bresson Mukhim :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.27/ Claimant No. 28 21. Shri. Kyntiewsing Giri Massar :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.28/ (deceased) Substituted by his Claimant No. 29 Page 10 of 99 sister Smti. Evaniarlyne Giri Massar 22. Smti. Merilinda Kharbujon :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.29/ Claimant No. 30 23. Smti. Esther Syiem :::Cross Objector/Respondent No.30/ Claimant No. 31 24. Smti. Skerina Kharkongor :::Cross Objector/Respondent

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

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

3 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 43/2007 BED RAM .....Appellant Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

3 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 43/2007 BED RAM .....Appellant Through: Mr. N.S. Chechi, Mr. Vaibhal Chechi and Ms. Rekha Chauhan, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar