S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

144, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It was the submission that there

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

144, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It was the submission that there

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

144 of the Act is without the authority of law. The learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error law in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and in not quashing the reassessment order, as such orders passed by both the authorities below, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

144 of the Act is without the authority of law. The learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error law in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and in not quashing the reassessment order, as such orders passed by both the authorities below, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice

SAHOO DIOSTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

144 of the Act is without the authority of law. The learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error law in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and in not quashing the reassessment order, as such orders passed by both the authorities below, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

144 of the Act is without the authority of law. The learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error law in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and in not quashing the reassessment order, as such orders passed by both the authorities below, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

144 of the Act is without the authority of law. The learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error law in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and in not quashing the reassessment order, as such orders passed by both the authorities below, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST,CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AAYAKAR BHAWAN

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

144 of the Act is without the authority of law. The learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error law in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and in not quashing the reassessment order, as such orders passed by both the authorities below, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,SHELTER SQUARE,

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

144 of the Act is without the authority of law. The learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error law in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and in not quashing the reassessment order, as such orders passed by both the authorities below, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice

SAHOO DISTRIBNUTORS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

144 of the Act is without the authority of law. The learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error law in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and in not quashing the reassessment order, as such orders passed by both the authorities below, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice

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

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

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act. 6. ITA No.504/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A),NFAC/2021-22/10384315 for the assessment year 2022-23 in the matter of assessment u/s.144 of the Act. 7. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act. 6. ITA No.504/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A),NFAC/2021-22/10384315 for the assessment year 2022-23 in the matter of assessment u/s.144 of the Act. 7. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act. 6. ITA No.504/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A),NFAC/2021-22/10384315 for the assessment year 2022-23 in the matter of assessment u/s.144 of the Act. 7. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), , BHUBANEWSWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act. 6. ITA No.504/CTK/2025 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.8.2025 passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A),NFAC/2021-22/10384315 for the assessment year 2022-23 in the matter of assessment u/s.144 of the Act. 7. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri