Case Law › High Court › Mr. B. Panda, Advocate v. The Income Tax...

Mr. B. Panda, Advocate v. The Income Tax Officer (Tds) …. Opposite Partiessambalpur And Others

High Court 21 Aug 2023 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · cisnc

Parties

Date of order

21 Aug 2023

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

Case summary

In Mr. B. Panda, Advocate v. The Income Tax Officer (Tds) …. Opposite Partiessambalpur And Others, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Decision: 4.The writ petition is disposed of as covered by Olari Little Flower Kuries (supra).

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 21146 of 2016 The Orissa Lift Irrigation …. PetitionerCorporation Ltd., Sambalpur Division Mr. B. Panda, Advocate -versus- The Income Tax Officer (TDS) …. Opposite PartiesSambalpur and others Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Sr. Standing Counsel (Revenue) CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No.4. ORDER21.08.2023 1.Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and draws attention to order dated 30[th] January, 2023 made by coordinate Bench. Paragraphs 1 and 2 from said order is reproduced below. “1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on a decision of the Kerala High Court in Olari Little Flower Kuries (P) Ltd. & Others v. Union of India & Others, (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Ker) and states that the issues raised in the present petition stand answered, inter alia, in favour of the Petitioner by the aforementioned judgment. 2. Learned counsel for the Department seeks time for instructions and if any appeal has been filed against the said judgment in the Supreme Court of India.” 2.Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, challenge in the writ petition be heard by this Court and decided, independent of view taken by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court by decision dated 22[nd] October, 2021 in Olari Little Flower Kuries (P) Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others (on, inter alia, Writ Appeal no.600 of 2017). 3.On query from Court Mr. Mohapatra submits, revenue has not sought to prefer appeal by special leave, to the Supreme Court. In the circumstances we accept petitioner’s contention that challenge in the writ petition stands covered by Olari Little Flower Kuries (supra). 4.The writ petition is disposed of as covered by Olari Little Flower Kuries (supra). Impugned demand is accordingly set aside and quashed. (Arindam Sinha) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: SISIR KUMAR SETHIDesignation: PERSONAL ASSISTANTReason: AuthenticationLocation: ORISSA HIGH COURTDate: 21-Aug-2023 18:54:52 (S.K. Mishra) Judge Sks

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.