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

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

54,000/- annually (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied. Rs.54,000 x 18=9,72,000/- (v) Loss of love and affection = Rs.25,000/- (vi) Funeral and transportation expenses = Rs.25,000/- Total Compensation Awarded = (iv+v+vi) Rs.10,22,000/- Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI

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 during this period was phenomenal and none of the companies have declared any dividend. The CIT(A) drew adverse inference against the assessee noting the volume and frequency of the transactions. The CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee was actually engaged actively in share transactions, they had a full-fledged shares Department