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

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

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

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

23 of 31 “ORDER Whereas, on the basis of Authorization dated 05.09.2018 issued by Deputy Director of Enforcement U/s 17 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for search and seizure to be conducted by the undersigned in respect of account no. 006005004192 in the name of Ms. Poonam Malik maintained with Delhi State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Hauz Khas

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

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

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. No. 69 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 70 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 71 of 2022, W.P.O

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

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

23 (2012) 4 SCC 653 40 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 55. The courts have applied the tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion. These doctrines were discussed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580] The Court found that “real likelihood” and “reasonable suspicion” were terms really inconsistent 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

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

23 premises allegedly belonging to the Detenu No. 1 and persons allegedly associated with him. Thereupon, a Statement (Annexure P-4) of the Detenu No.1 was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the 11.10.2021, wherein the Detenu No. 1 admittedly stated that he had studied only till the VIII standard and therefore, expressed his volition

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires