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) ..

233 (Karnataka) to submit that the Hon‟ble High Court has categorically held that the approval under section 153D do not require any opportunity of hearing to be 13 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 given to the assessee by the authority who has to approve draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority. It was the submission that the said provisions of section

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) ..

233 (Karnataka) to submit that the Hon‟ble High Court has categorically held that the approval under section 153D do not require any opportunity of hearing to be 13 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 given to the assessee by the authority who has to approve draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority. It was the submission that the said provisions of section

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) ..

233 (Karnataka) to submit that the Hon‟ble High Court has categorically held that the approval under section 153D do not require any opportunity of hearing to be 13 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 given to the assessee by the authority who has to approve draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority. It was the submission that the said provisions of section

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) ..

233 (Karnataka) to submit that the Hon‟ble High Court has categorically held that the approval under section 153D do not require any opportunity of hearing to be 13 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 given to the assessee by the authority who has to approve draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority. It was the submission that the said provisions of section

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) ..

233 (Karnataka) to submit that the Hon‟ble High Court has categorically held that the approval under section 153D do not require any opportunity of hearing to be 13 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 given to the assessee by the authority who has to approve draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority. It was the submission that the said provisions of section

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

233 of 2015,\nand Writ Petition Nos. 198,199, 262, 264, 265, 271, 272, 879, 880,\n881, 882, 883 of 2016, are all petitions where reopening notices\ncontained additional reasons involving issues under Section 10B of\nthe Act or Section 14A of the Act or commission paid to foreign\nagents, etc. These petitions deserve to be detagged from the group

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

233 of 2015,\nand Writ Petition Nos. 198,199, 262, 264, 265, 271, 272, 879, 880,\n881, 882, 883 of 2016, are all petitions where reopening notices\ncontained additional reasons involving issues under Section 10B of\nthe Act or Section 14A of the Act or commission paid to foreign\nagents, etc. These petitions deserve to be detagged from the group

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

233 of 2015,\nand Writ Petition Nos. 198,199, 262, 264, 265, 271, 272, 879, 880,\n881, 882, 883 of 2016, are all petitions where reopening notices\ncontained additional reasons involving issues under Section 10B of\nthe Act or Section 14A of the Act or commission paid to foreign\nagents, etc. These petitions deserve to be detagged from the group