DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

penalty of Rs.243.48 crores issued by the State Government, the assessee has replied to the show cause notice issued and no further action has been done by the State Government till today. It was the further submission that the Assessing P a g e 3 | 19 ITA Nos.357 & 388/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 Officer talks of unlawful mining operation

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

penalty of Rs.243.48 crores issued by the State Government, the assessee has replied to the show cause notice issued and no further action has been done by the State Government till today. It was the further submission that the Assessing P a g e 3 | 19 ITA Nos.357 & 388/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 Officer talks of unlawful mining operation

M/S. VINAYAK AGRO INDUSTRIES,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-4, ROURKELA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

penalty proceeding under Section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. 1.11. The Assessment Order dated 30-12-2019 passed by Ld .ITO was carried the matter before Ld. CIT(Appeals) by the Appellant contending inter alia that: (i) There is no material to form a reasonable belief. Entire proceeding initiated is based on borrowed satisfaction i.e. on the basis

M/S. VINAYAK AGRO INDUSTRIES,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-4, ROURKELA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

penalty proceeding under Section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. 1.11. The Assessment Order dated 30-12-2019 passed by Ld .ITO was carried the matter before Ld. CIT(Appeals) by the Appellant contending inter alia that: (i) There is no material to form a reasonable belief. Entire proceeding initiated is based on borrowed satisfaction i.e. on the basis

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

u/s 2(7A) by virtue of an order u/s.120(4)(b) for conducting assessment proceedings he is mandatorily required to serve a notice u/s.143(2). In the instant case, we find that notice u/s.143(2) has not been issued by the It.CIT as required in the Statute and no order u/s.127(1) was passed for transferring jurisdiction from the ACIT

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

reopening notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of the relevant assessment year therefore the impugned notice issued with sanction of Addl. Commissioner and not Pr.CIT being legally invalid was liable to be set aside. 8. In view of above facts and by respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay high court in the case

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

reopening notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of the relevant assessment year therefore the impugned notice issued with sanction of Addl. Commissioner and not Pr.CIT being legally invalid was liable to be set aside. 8. In view of above facts and by respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay high court in the case

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

reopening notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of the relevant assessment year therefore the impugned notice issued with sanction of Addl. Commissioner and not Pr.CIT being legally invalid was liable to be set aside. 8. In view of above facts and by respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay high court in the case

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

reopening notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of the relevant assessment year therefore the impugned notice issued with sanction of Addl. Commissioner and not Pr.CIT being legally invalid was liable to be set aside. 8. In view of above facts and by respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay high court in the case

SYLVESA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD -1(1), BHUBANESWAR

u/s 147 rws 144 of the previous\nAY, i.e. 2013-14 & 147 rws 1448 for AY 2016-17 (which is under\nappeal in ITA No 565 fixed for hearing today) on similar issue, the\nLd AO, on perusal of the similar documents submitted before him\nhad accepted the credits to be realisation from Sales and Debtors.\nRequesting your kind attention