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

C). 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A): Replaced Grounds of appeal are as under: (2.1). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under section 143(3) is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction, on the grounds amongst

ASHA DIDWANIA,BHADRAK vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.128& 129/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 & 2012-2013) Smt. Asha Didwania, Vs Assessment Unit, National Matrumandir, Near Hp Petrol Faceless Assessment Centre Pump, Charampa, Bhadrak (Nfac), Delhi Pan No. :Aoopd 2243 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2024

reassessment order was passed by applying profit rate of 2.3% on the undisclosed bank deposits by treating the same as business turnover. Against the quantum order, the assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and settled the dispute. However, in the assessment order the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.271B of the Act for failure to get accounts audited

ASHA DIDWANIA,BHADRAK vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.128& 129/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 & 2012-2013) Smt. Asha Didwania, Vs Assessment Unit, National Matrumandir, Near Hp Petrol Faceless Assessment Centre Pump, Charampa, Bhadrak (Nfac), Delhi Pan No. :Aoopd 2243 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/05/2024

reassessment order was passed by applying profit rate of 2.3% on the undisclosed bank deposits by treating the same as business turnover. Against the quantum order, the assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and settled the dispute. However, in the assessment order the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.271B of the Act for failure to get accounts audited

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

c) Where such satisfaction is not based on any material or it cannot withstand the test of reason, which is a integral part of it then it falls through 'and the Court is empowered to strike it down; d) "reason to believe" suggest that the belief based upon reasonable grounds; e) If the reason for his belief is not based

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

c) Where such satisfaction is not based on any material or it cannot withstand the test of reason, which is a integral part of it then it falls through 'and the Court is empowered to strike it down; d) "reason to believe" suggest that the belief based upon reasonable grounds; e) If the reason for his belief is not based

M G MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.402/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-2009) वष" M G Mohanty, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar 5A, Forest Park, Odisha Pan No. :Aaffm 2127 H (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर : Sh B.K.Mahapatra & Sh. A.K.Sabat, Cas राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.08.2024, Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-1/10098/2016-17 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067224134(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Appellate Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [In Short "Cit (Appeals)") Dated 01.08.2024 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 [In Short "I.T.Act/ "Act] In Dismissing The Appeal Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice, Contrary To Facts, Unjustified, Arbitrary, Erroneous, Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts & Legally Untenable.

Section 6 of the MMDR Act. 1957, Environment Impact Assessment notification dated 27.01.1994 (EIA Notification, 1994) issued by MoEF) under Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and circular dated 25.4.2005 of MoEF issued in continuation to Circular dated 28.10.2004 being on mis- appreciation/misconstruing of the facts is incorrect, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts