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

RAJESWAR THAKUR,BHAWANIPATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), SAMBALPUR

section 148 or to\ndisclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for\nthat assessment year.\nसत्यमेव जयते\nFour years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired in this\ncase and you had failed on your part to disclose fully all material facts\nnecessary for your assessment for the assessment year under consideration.\nIME

MIRNAL MEHTA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WRD-2(4), , CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section ( borrowed information by AO ) that heavy cash is deposited in the State Bank of India having account No. 30926528935. The said bank was duly verified by the Id. AO during the original assessment proceedings. No new material was received by the AO nor has any reference to any new materials on record but only on a revisiting

CHOUDHURY SWAPAN KUMAR MOHAPATRA,BALASORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

73. It was the submission that there is no recording of satisfaction in the files of M/s SM Consultancy from whose possession these documents were seized for the purpose of transferring the alleged seized documents to the AO having jurisdiction over the assesee. It was the submission that even though the AO in respect of M/s SM Consultancy

OMM DHANA LAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. PCIT, INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Omm Dhanalaxmi Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Jewellers, Bazar Chowk, Main Road, Angul-759122 Pan/Gir No.Aagfd 8791 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/9/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/9/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 30.3.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1) That The Ld. Pr Cit Bhubaneswar Has Erred In Law By Utilizing Section 263 For Directing The Assessing Officer To Do Necessary Verification As Per The Order Of Hon'Ble Itat Cuttack Bench Vide Order Dated 01-10-2019 Which Was Already Barred By Limitation. Provisions Of 263 Does Not Allow To Proceed For A Matter Which Was Already Barred By Limitation. Hence, The Order Passed Us 263 Needs To Be Quashed In To.

section 147 for the reason for failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. The total quantum income escaped is prima facie calculated at Rs.20,00,000/-“ 4. After that the reassessment order was passed on 29.09.2021 by making addition

SYLVESA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD -1(1), BHUBANESWAR

73,40,969/- in its bank accounts. For AY 2016-2017, the AO had rejected the assessee's books of accounts and estimated the income. The assessee contended that the necessary evidence was provided to the AO and CIT(A).", "held": "The Tribunal noted that for AY 2014-2015, there was a dispute regarding the verification of receipts from debtors

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

MARUTI TRADING CO,JAGAATSINGHPUR vs. ITO WARD PARADEEP, PARADEEP

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Maruti Trading Co., Maruti Trading Co., Panisalia, Vs. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Jagatsinghpur. Jagatsinghpur. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aalfm 3677 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /08/2023 O R D E R

reassessment no more survive, the original assessment comes into effect and so also the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer in page 2 of his order levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) himself has recognized that it is not proper to impose penalty in respect of addition of Rs.97