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

section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956. That the assessee has been investing funds with long- term view which is evident from the fact that during the financial year in question the assessee has yearned Rs. 460.09 lakhs as capital gains from the investment activities out of which Rs. 432.09 lakhs was long-term capital gain. That during the whole

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

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

3 total value including stamp duty and registration Rs. 70,575/- were purchased by Dr. Pradeep Kumar in his own name and in the name of Nand Lal HUF (Karta Rajendra Kumar), in the name of his brother Rajendra Kumar and Shyamal Chakraborty (present appellant) from the proceeds of crime which source of acquisition is not substantiated by them

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