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

65) GSTL 263 (AP) 8 (1985) 1 SCC 591 9 (1987) 1 SCC 695 10 (2005) 7 SCC 396 Page 12 of 32 {W.P.(T)Nos.14/2021, 15/2021, 16/2021, 17/2021 & 18/2021} would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maruti Suzuki Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III11 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gujarat

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 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