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

reassessment\nproceedings or in the remand report submitted before the Ld.CIT(A),\nthe A0 unable to lay his hand on any evidence exhibiting under-\ninvoicing by the assessee. The AO is solely harboured upon\nCommission's report. It is pertinent to observe that a charge of\nsuppressed sales carried out by the assessee has been raised by the\nAO against

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

reassessment\nproceedings or in the remand report submitted before the Ld.CIT(A),\nthe A0 unable to lay his hand on any evidence exhibiting under-\ninvoicing by the assessee. The AO is solely harboured upon\nCommission's report. It is pertinent to observe that a charge of\nsuppressed sales carried out by the assessee has been raised by the\nAO against

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

reassessment\nproceedings or in the remand report submitted before the Ld.CIT(A),\nthe A0 unable to lay his hand on any evidence exhibiting under-\ninvoicing by the assessee. The AO is solely harboured upon\nCommission's report. It is pertinent to observe that a charge of\nsuppressed sales carried out by the assessee has been raised by the\nAO against

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

reassessment\nproceedings or in the remand report submitted before the Ld.CIT(A),\nthe A0 unable to lay his hand on any evidence exhibiting under-\ninvoicing by the assessee. The AO is solely harboured upon\nCommission's report. It is pertinent to observe that a charge of\nsuppressed sales carried out by the assessee has been raised by the\nAO against

JAY KISHORE CHOUBEY,RAIRANGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

10. Further, it is trite law that the reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis to determine the validity of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following observation of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs R.B.Wadkar

MIRNAL MEHTA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WRD-2(4), , CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment. It is trite that the assessment cannot be reopened on Change of Opinion. Therefore, the appellant states that this is a clear case of mere Change of Opinion not sustainable in the eye of law. The reopening has to be quashed in the interest of justice. It is purely a mere Change of Opinion. Without any fresh material coming

SULTAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,,SUNDARPADA, BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aascs 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

38 of 2020) , and it received assent of President of India on 29.09.2020. It was published/notified in the official Gazette of India on 29.09.2020 at No. 63. As Preamble of the said Act Reads was an Act to provide for relaxation and amendment of provisions of Certain Acts and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. I will refer

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

10. In reply, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) had no applicability insofar as the provisions of section 124 was in respect of territorial jurisdiction and now the assesse has challenged the non-issuance of order u/s.127

MSL FISH TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

38,670/-. The appellant company attended the hearings and complied all the requirements as sought for by the Ld. A.O. from time to time. That, the Ld. A.O completed assessment u/s 153A of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.8,50,56,534/- vide order dated 20.05.2021. thereby making an addition of Rs.6,69,50,000/- on account

MSL FISH TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

38,670/-. The appellant company attended the hearings and complied all the requirements as sought for by the Ld. A.O. from time to time. That, the Ld. A.O completed assessment u/s 153A of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.8,50,56,534/- vide order dated 20.05.2021. thereby making an addition of Rs.6,69,50,000/- on account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. Rajendra Rajendra Prasad Prasad Gupta, Gupta, Income Tax, Central Cir Income Tax, Central Circle, 1/15, 1/15, Civil Civil Township, Township, Sambalpur Rourkela-769004 769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Abdpg 9284 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid & Sudarshan Firoze Andhyarujina, Nikhil Jangid & Sudarshan Padhi, Advs Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/9/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

section 132 of the Act, which is in regard to search says that search is normally conducted when there is suspicion that the person would not produce or cause to be produced such details as are required by the department for the purpose of assessment. This is one of the reasons why the search u/s.132 of the Act is conducted

SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,BARIPADA vs. ACIT, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.449/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) वष"

38,96,284/-. The assessment order completed u/s. 144 vide order dated 6.12.2019 at a total income of Rs. 37,32,140/-. As the assessee has not filed the relevant details, the Assessing Officer has estimated the income of the assessee from contract activity by applying the net profit rate at 6% before interest and remuneration of the partners

GANESH KUMAR SHARMA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-1, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal as well as on merits also

38) of the Act. For this, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High 4 Court in the case of Kuntala Mohapatra, reported in [2024] 160 taxmann.com 567 (Orissa) and submitted that the SLP against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 160 taxmann.com 608 (SC). He thus, submitted that