BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassess the total income of the assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Consequently, there would be only one assessment order in respect of six assessment years in which total disclosed or undisclosed income would be brought to tax. Consequently, even though an assessment order has been passed under Section 143(1

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassess the total income of the assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Consequently, there would be only one assessment order in respect of six assessment years in which total disclosed or undisclosed income would be brought to tax. Consequently, even though an assessment order has been passed under Section 143(1

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassess the total income of the assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Consequently, there would be only one assessment order in respect of six assessment years in which total disclosed or undisclosed income would be brought to tax. Consequently, even though an assessment order has been passed under Section 143(1

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassess the total income of the assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Consequently, there would be only one assessment order in respect of six assessment years in which total disclosed or undisclosed income would be brought to tax. Consequently, even though an assessment order has been passed under Section 143(1

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

reassessment was bad in law for failure to issue notice to the Assessee under section 143(2) of the Act?” The Hon’ble Orissa High Court is answering the question, held as follows: “”3. As far as Question No.(iii) is concerned , Mr. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department raises preliminary objection that this issue was not raised

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 proceedings initiated by the AO based solely on the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report were null and void. The report lacked credibility and was not based on independent verification. The additions and disallowances made by the AO were deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 37(1)", "Section 143

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(1) of the Act disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11(2) of the Act by making an addition of ₹ 10,45,000/- and raising tax liability of ₹ 1,82,680/- and tax demand of ₹ 1,70,633/- after adjustment of TDS refund claim for that year of ₹ 12,047/- due to failure to file Form No. 10 within

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(1) of the Act disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11(2) of the Act by making an addition of ₹ 10,45,000/- and raising tax liability of ₹ 1,82,680/- and tax demand of ₹ 1,70,633/- after adjustment of TDS refund claim for that year of ₹ 12,047/- due to failure to file Form No. 10 within

LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the directions

1). (7) The Assessing Officer may, on receipt of the report from the Valuation Officer, and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, take into account such report in making the assessment or reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth

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

sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "147", "148", "143(3)", "37(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated based on the Justice

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

143, 144, 145, 150, 165, 167, 207, 226,\n227, 777, 791 of 2016, are all cases where reassessment notices are\nissued within four years from the end of the relevant Assessment\nYears. There is no requirement or failure on the part of the assessee\nto disclose fully and truly material facts in these cases. So far as the\ninformation

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

143, 144, 145, 150, 165, 167, 207, 226,\n227, 777, 791 of 2016, are all cases where reassessment notices are\nissued within four years from the end of the relevant Assessment\nYears. There is no requirement or failure on the part of the assessee\nto disclose fully and truly material facts in these cases. So far as the\ninformation

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)

143(3) of the 1961 Act. The show cause notice u/s 263 was issued by ld. PCIT on 26.02.2021 , while revisionary order was passed by ld. PCIT u/s 263 on 18.03.2021. This is clearly beyond the time stipulated u/s 263(2) , as the revisionary order ought to have been passed by ld. PCIT u/s 263 before 31.03.2020 i.e. within

M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

reassess the total income of the assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. Consequently, there would be only one assessment order in respect of six assessment years in which total disclosed or undisclosed income would be brought to tax. Consequently, even though an assessment order has been passed under Section 143(1

M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.201-205/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2019-2020) M/S Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. :Aaact 6489 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2023 In The Following Appeals :-

1. The Learned Assessing Officer has made addition of RS.5,39,92,037.00, under the head Suppression of Sale, by treating Shyam Sel and Power Limited, as a related party. As per Sub-Rule (8), Rule 45 of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules 1988, which is reproduced in the Assessment Order, ex-mines sales, in case of domestic sale

M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.201-205/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2019-2020) M/S Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. :Aaact 6489 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2023 In The Following Appeals :-

1. The Learned Assessing Officer has made addition of RS.5,39,92,037.00, under the head Suppression of Sale, by treating Shyam Sel and Power Limited, as a related party. As per Sub-Rule (8), Rule 45 of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules 1988, which is reproduced in the Assessment Order, ex-mines sales, in case of domestic sale

M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.201-205/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2019-2020) M/S Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. :Aaact 6489 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2023 In The Following Appeals :-

1. The Learned Assessing Officer has made addition of RS.5,39,92,037.00, under the head Suppression of Sale, by treating Shyam Sel and Power Limited, as a related party. As per Sub-Rule (8), Rule 45 of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules 1988, which is reproduced in the Assessment Order, ex-mines sales, in case of domestic sale

M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.201-205/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2019-2020) M/S Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. :Aaact 6489 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2023 In The Following Appeals :-

1. The Learned Assessing Officer has made addition of RS.5,39,92,037.00, under the head Suppression of Sale, by treating Shyam Sel and Power Limited, as a related party. As per Sub-Rule (8), Rule 45 of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules 1988, which is reproduced in the Assessment Order, ex-mines sales, in case of domestic sale