THE KORAPUT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,JEYPORE, KORAPUT vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

45,49,630/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) under "Limited" category and assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 31.10.2017 accepting the returned income. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar initiated proceedings u/s.263 of the Act and vide order u/s 263 dated 19.03.2020, set aside the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006- 07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G. A. No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. 11. No order as to costs. [Copy Enclosed CLPB-2.Pg.Nos. P a g e 47 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (H').TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED U/S.124

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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

45,127.00, being not proper and correct in the eye of law as well as of fact, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. P a g e 3 | 10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales

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