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

21 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} at the contractual rates in favour of joint ventures, vendors, etc., which is sold at a 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.AHINSA VINIMAY PVT.LTD.

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

21 to 24 thereof held as under:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8.3.2. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Swiss Re Shared Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., for asst. year 2011-12 (Supra), we hold that the engineering Date of Judgment

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

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

transferring the burden of paying the amount of compensation from respondent no.1-Insurance Company to the appellants herein.” 27. In the present matter, it is not the case that the victim himself was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, rather he was sitting in the trolley which was used for the agricultural purpose as they were carrying the rice straw

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

transfer of shares of companies which were thinly traded and were highly illiquid and they are called as penny stocks. The period of holding of the shares is just above 12 months and the appreciation in price during this period was phenomenal. On an average transaction in the shares are shown to have been yielded 1129% returns during the period

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

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

21,36,300/- (being 50% of the total consideration of subject property) and also Rs. 1,05,670/- as cash in hand on 31.03.2011. It is further argued that the learned appellate tribunal has wrongly held that the payment made to the developer M/s Ashicon Housing Pvt. Ltd. by the purchaser Arun Kumar Agarwal as the proceeds of alleged crime