M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiam/S Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., Omc House, Post Box No.34, Bhubaneswar-01 Pan No.Aaaco 3324 L …………….. Assessee Versus Acit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar ………………Revenue

189 ITR 285), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the legal position as under:- "This paragraph does not in any way affect the principle enumerated in the two Madras cases cited with approval in Anandji Haridas [1986] 21 S.T.C. 326. Even making allowances for this limitation placed on the observations in Kalyanji Mavji, the position as summarized

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to non-resident by the assessee for import of goods and also notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 29.3.2014 and u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 23.05.2014 were issued to the assessee. In compliance, Office Manager (F&A) appeared on behalf of the assessee and case was discussed and filed

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to non-resident by the assessee for import of goods and also notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 29.3.2014 and u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 23.05.2014 were issued to the assessee. In compliance, Office Manager (F&A) appeared on behalf of the assessee and case was discussed and filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PHULBANI vs. NARSINGH DASH AGRAWALA AND SONS, PHULBANI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings holding that the conditions for the purpose of reopening as mentioned in the CBDT instruction in F.No.225/40/221/ITA-II dated 4.3.2021 as has been extracted by the CIT(A) in para 13 of his order did not provide for the reopening as the assessee’s case do not fall in any of those conditions. It was the submission that