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

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

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

U/s 143(3)/Sec.147/Sec.263 of the Act determining total income of Rs.11,26,350/- on the basis of incomparable turnover of the giant companies in a perfunctory and ad hoc manner. The Ld. AO also initiated 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

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

U/s 143(3)/Sec.147/Sec.263 of the Act determining total income of Rs.11,26,350/- on the basis of incomparable turnover of the giant companies in a perfunctory and ad hoc manner. The Ld. AO also initiated 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

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

section 149 in fact require a quantification to be in excess of amount of Rs.1 lakh. It was the submission that even this has not been mentioned by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that though the Assessing Officer mentions a show cause notice in respect of penalty of Rs.243.48 crores issued by the State Government, the assessee

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

section 149 in fact require a quantification to be in excess of amount of Rs.1 lakh. It was the submission that even this has not been mentioned by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that though the Assessing Officer mentions a show cause notice in respect of penalty of Rs.243.48 crores issued by the State Government, the assessee

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

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 was delay of 253 days

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

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 was delay of 253 days

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

147 in the case of the assessee was made after four from the expiry of the impugned assessment year. 7. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. Vs. ACIT 141 Taxmann.com 127 (Bombay) held that as per provisions of Sec. 151(1) sanction of Commissioner or Principal Commissioner is a pre-requisite for issuance

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

147 in the case of the assessee was made after four from the expiry of the impugned assessment year. 7. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. Vs. ACIT 141 Taxmann.com 127 (Bombay) held that as per provisions of Sec. 151(1) sanction of Commissioner or Principal Commissioner is a pre-requisite for issuance

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

147 in the case of the assessee was made after four from the expiry of the impugned assessment year. 7. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. Vs. ACIT 141 Taxmann.com 127 (Bombay) held that as per provisions of Sec. 151(1) sanction of Commissioner or Principal Commissioner is a pre-requisite for issuance

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

147 in the case of the assessee was made after four from the expiry of the impugned assessment year. 7. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. Vs. ACIT 141 Taxmann.com 127 (Bombay) held that as per provisions of Sec. 151(1) sanction of Commissioner or Principal Commissioner is a pre-requisite for issuance

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

147 of the Act, Question No. (iii) as answered in the affirmative, by holding that the re- assessement is bad in law, in favour of the Assessee and against the Department. 8.In view of the answer to Question No.(iii) , the Court is not required to answer Question nos.(i) and (ii) since the re-assessment proceedings already stand invalidated