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

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

price. Further, the volume and frequency of transactions also leads to the conclusion that it is apparent that the transactions are not one of investment but it is that of trading. Dealing with the argument of the assessee that 95% of its gains were by way of long-term capital gains, the CIT(A) held that the motive of those

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S.UTKAL ALUMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

transfer by way of mortgage the urban land bearing No. A-I, Radhey Puri, Delhi-51. DW-2 22. Copy of Grant of mortgage permission in respect of plot no.8, Sector B &C for which loan has been sanctioned for construction of building thereon. DW-2 23. Copy of No objection certificate to mortgage the plot no.8, Sector