PANCHANAN PRADHAN,KHURDA vs. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.10/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Panchanan Pradhan, Vs. Ito, Khurda Ward, Ashok Nagar, 2Nd Lane, Khurda Balugaon, Khurda स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Ajhpp 4713 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 06.09.2016, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Quashing The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Which Is Unjust, Illegal, Arbitrary, Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Herein After Referred As 'The Act') & Has Been Passed In Gross Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Without Having Any Reasons On The Self Same Facts, Which Has Been Considered By The Learned Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act. 3. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Wherein The Learned Assessing Officer Has Failed To Prove That The Alleged Income Escaped Owing To Failure On The Part Of The Appellant.

260/-. Subsequently, the AO reassessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,05,560/- and made addition of Rs.1,60,295/- being excess of assets over liabilities. Against which the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal against

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

section 149 in fact require a quantification to be in excess of amount of Rs.1 lakh. It was the submission that even this has not been mentioned by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that though the Assessing Officer mentions a show cause notice in respect of penalty of Rs.243.48 crores issued by the State Government, the assessee

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE- 2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

section 149 in fact require a quantification to be in excess of amount of Rs.1 lakh. It was the submission that even this has not been mentioned by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that though the Assessing Officer mentions a show cause notice in respect of penalty of Rs.243.48 crores issued by the State Government, the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

260 ITR (St) 191 at 219) was that under the existing provisions relating to search cases, often disputes were raised on the question, as to whether a particular income could be treated as ' undisclosed income' or whether a particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search, etc., which led to prolonged

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

260 ITR (St) 191 at 219) was that under the existing provisions relating to search cases, often disputes were raised on the question, as to whether a particular income could be treated as ' undisclosed income' or whether a particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search, etc., which led to prolonged

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

260/- on sale of lands to the Trust measuring 13.176 acres and 3.280 acres respectively in the year 2001~02. 11. In view of the findings discussed above, the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Status of the assessee-trust is treated as Association of Persons