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

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

32. At the outset, it is clarified that the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent has not raised any contention regarding whether, after the freezing of property under Section 17(1A) of the PMLA, the mandatory requirements of Section 20 of the PMLA were duly complied with prior to the passing of the order under Section

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

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

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

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

32 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 33. Rule of Law is of the elemental principle of Constitution of India. The Rule of Law requires Rule within the ambit of law and every statutory authority must function themselves as required under the law. The Constitution requires that Rule of Law must be upheld over the rule

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

32 of 171 Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. versus NATHU & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners + LA.APP. 1145/2008 UOI .....Appellant 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. versus BALBIR

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

32 of 171 Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. versus NATHU & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners + LA.APP. 1145/2008 UOI .....Appellant 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. versus BALBIR