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

2.(iii). Whether the reassessment was bad in law for failure to issue notice to the Assessee under section 143

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DICT, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment orders all dated 30.6.2015 passed under section 143(3/163/147 for the assessment year 2008-09 and under section 143(3)/251/147 for the assessment years 2010-11 and Asse ssment Years: 200 8-0 9,2

M/S. BARIPADA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,BARIPADA vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE., BALASORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010 Baripada Urban Co-Operative Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Bank Ltd., At: Roxy Road, Balasore. Baripada Pan/Gir No. Aabat 2673 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

reassessment order cannot be passed without compliance with the mandatory requirement of notice being issued by the AO to the Assessee under Section 143(2

M/S. MAHASAKTI FOUNDATION,KALAHANDI vs. ACIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment order passed u/s.147 of the Act submitted that the registration u/s.12AA of the Act was granted to the assessee by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur vide his order dated 28.5.2013 w.e.f. 29.11.2012. He submitted that sub- section (2) of Section 12A of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007 provides that where an application

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) ..

2. In the second ground of appeal, it has been argued that no incriminating documents were found and seized in course of search in the present case and therefore the A.O. could not have disturbed the completed assessments. However this argument is valid only for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. It is submitted that Section 153A (which

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) ..

2. In the second ground of appeal, it has been argued that no incriminating documents were found and seized in course of search in the present case and therefore the A.O. could not have disturbed the completed assessments. However this argument is valid only for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. It is submitted that Section 153A (which

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) ..

2. In the second ground of appeal, it has been argued that no incriminating documents were found and seized in course of search in the present case and therefore the A.O. could not have disturbed the completed assessments. However this argument is valid only for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. It is submitted that Section 153A (which

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) ..

2. In the second ground of appeal, it has been argued that no incriminating documents were found and seized in course of search in the present case and therefore the A.O. could not have disturbed the completed assessments. However this argument is valid only for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. It is submitted that Section 153A (which

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) ..

2. In the second ground of appeal, it has been argued that no incriminating documents were found and seized in course of search in the present case and therefore the A.O. could not have disturbed the completed assessments. However this argument is valid only for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. It is submitted that Section 153A (which

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) ..

2. In the second ground of appeal, it has been argued that no incriminating documents were found and seized in course of search in the present case and therefore the A.O. could not have disturbed the completed assessments. However this argument is valid only for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. It is submitted that Section 153A (which

SHRI PURNA CHANDRA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2013-2014

143(2) of the Act pursuant to notice under section 148 of the Act, is fatal to the order of reassessment

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

SUSHIL KUMAR ROUT,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :1998-1999

Section 143(2) notice, same is being upheld. 8. Respectfully following the above quoted decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Travancore Diagnostics (P) Ltd(supts), I hold that the reassessment

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

143 (1) of the Act, amounting to ₹ 11,99,710/- so made by the CPC towards the deposit of employees‟ contribution towards ESI and PF paid before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139 (1) of the Act, is hereby directed to be deleted. – Decided in favour of assessee. ii) Stirred Creative Advertising

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 2

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

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

2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957)" 12. From the bare reading of all these three sections it may be seen that section 43CA deals with the valuation of all the assets other than capital assets and other provisions of section 50C are applicable. Section 55A can be invoked where estimation of fair market value

SHREE DEOSHARWALI OIL INDUSTRIES,GOVINDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARGARH, BSF NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-2019 2019 Shree Shree Deosharwali Deosharwali Oil Oil Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward Industries, Industries, Salepali Salepali Bargarh, Bsf Nagar. Nh Bargarh, Bsf Nagar. Nh Govindpur, Bargarh Govindpur, Bargarh Street, Bandu Vikira Chowk, Street, Bandu Vikira Chowk, 1St Floor, Bargarh Floor, Bargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Acbfs 4179 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ca Sunil Surana, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

reassessment is bad in law. 2. For that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of reopening when notice u/s.148A(b) is bad in law since it provided less than 7 days to comply and therefore, the entire assessment is bad in law. 3. For that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of reopening when

BASUKINATH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) provides that when the 153(A)(1)is annulled, the assessment or reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. 10. Thus on a plain reading of section 153A of the Income-tax Act, it becomes clear that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, it is only the assessment/reassessment proceedings that are pending on the date of conducting search