SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,NFAC,DELHI, NFAC DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 to 151 of the Act and therefore the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 as short term capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

151 ITR 499 (Guj)(FB)). Now coming to the assessee’s case whether it can be termed as a “State” or not we submit that; - That, on 23rd March 1974, “The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974” had been notified for the purpose of prevention and control of water pollution and maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water