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

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

6(1) the 'real danger' test, interpreted as in the first-mentioned case, introduced a discrepancy between the Convention and the common law in ensuring impartial decision- making. In addition it disregarded the hallowed principle that justice must be seen to be done. The House of Lords, in recognition of this discrepancy, has now made 'a modest adjustment

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

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

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

43. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Impugned Judgment are the resultant conclusions based on the finding of the learned Appellate Tribunal that Section 8(3) prescribes a time limit for the purpose of investigation as well. Para 26 goes a step further, insofar as it concludes that the Appellant herein could not have been investigated against

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

43 of 99 on the basis of fair market value, but however, did not comply with the requirements of Section 19 in general and 19(1)(d) in particular, with regard to the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined. 18. It is asserted that though the Reference Petition under Section 18, was signed

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

6. It is submitted in this behalf by the Ld. Senior Counsel that, the proposal for preventive detention was received by the Detaining Authority from the Advisory Board only on 24.11.2021 and with surprising alacrity less than 2 days thereafter on the 26.11.2021, the impugned detention order was passed after considering and relying Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date

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

C) Bench, Kolkata ITA No. 552 of 1060/Kol/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06. The appeal was admitted on 20th March, 2010 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding the profit of Rs. 4,32,09,144/- as long-term