COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

4 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. Ms. Kamna Singh, Panel Counsel for DDA. + LA.APP. 58/2007 DULI CHAND .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

4 of 171 Akhtar, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. Ms. Kamna Singh, Panel Counsel for DDA. + LA.APP. 58/2007 DULI CHAND .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhagwat

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

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

4 SCC 10 41 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters court will have to judge the matter as a reasonable man would judge of any matter in the conduct of his own business. In R. v. Sussex Justices [(1924) 1 KB 256, 259 : 1923 All ER Rep 233] it has been indicated that answer to the question whether there

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

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

4 later issued notice under Section 153A of the Act. He contested the notice and ultimately suffered several adverse orders by way of final assessment, which resulted in substantial additions. These additions primarily were on account of (a) alleged unexplained credit-brought to tax under Section 68

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

68 of 99 35. A registered document in terms of Section 51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption

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

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

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

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