COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 256/2017 POOJA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & 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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 256/2017 POOJA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

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

29. In V. Narasaiah case this Court correctly understood the said scope and object of insertion of Section 51-A in the LA Act when it held thus: (SCC p. 535, para 13) “It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51-A was introduced in the LA Act. When the section

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

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

29. It would be highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel that the Respondent‟s bank accounts are not treated as “case property” before the learned Special Court (PMLA), and since no proceedings depend 12(2021) 6 SCC 707 13AIR 1967 SC 295 14(2008) 14 SCC 186 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:05:28 Signature

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

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

29. In the matter of Pancham Chand v. State of H.P.18, the Supreme Court has dealt with the situation wherein the Chief Minister of the state has communicated twice to the transport commissioner to grant of permit to the Respondent and to take further action and sent a compliance report to the office. The Supreme Court has held that Regional

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

68 ITR 486 (SC) 152018 9 SCC Page 1 ITA/83/2010 REPORTABLE Page 22 of 60 9. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent assessee submitted that the only question involved in the appeal is as to whether the tribunal was correct in holding the profit of Rs. 4,32,09,144/- on the sale of shares

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