ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

256/- on the ground that it is not incidental business is bad in law and incorrect. 2. The said expenditure was accepted by the then Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same in the subsequent re-assessment tantamount to change of opinion and therefore is not valid

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

256/- on the ground that it is not incidental business is bad in law and incorrect. 2. The said expenditure was accepted by the then Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same in the subsequent re-assessment tantamount to change of opinion and therefore is not valid

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

256/- on the ground that it is not incidental business is bad in law and incorrect. 2. The said expenditure was accepted by the then Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same in the subsequent re-assessment tantamount to change of opinion and therefore is not valid

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DICT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

256/- on the ground that it is not incidental business is bad in law and incorrect. 2. The said expenditure was accepted by the then Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same in the subsequent re-assessment tantamount to change of opinion and therefore is not valid

ITO, KHURDA vs. BULARAM DALAI, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2 LTD. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in cancelling the reassessment proceeding for the assessment year 2009-10 which was initiated by the A.O on the basis of Revenue Audit Party's objection. 4. Any other grounds, if any, shall be pressed at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case