MAHESWAR PANDA vs. I.T.O., WARD-2(1)

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

business activities. Thus, a tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of 'goods carriage' contained in Section 2(14) of the said Act. 8. In view of above, we are of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has not justified in transferring the burden of paying

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. SEKHAR KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

business of construction. Investigation further revealed that in the sale deed No. 9786 dated 31.08.2009 wherein the seller of the properties is Sri Arun Kumar Agarwal. Rajendra Kumar vide his letter dated Nil, which has been received by ED on 13.10.2015, he has himself declared that following loans were taken by Nand Lal HUF for purchase of this Flat

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.

Accordingly, the learned appellate authority has rightly dismissed the

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

price. 27. In that view of the matter, as it is admitted case of the petitioner that the electricity generated in 540 MW Power Plant is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer i.e. the petitioner herein, the petitioner would not be entitled for ITC to electrical