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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same in the subsequent re-assessment tantamount to change of opinion and therefore is not valid. 19 ITA No.333/CTK/2014, ITA No.375/CTK/2016 ITA No.271/CTK/2017, ITA No.381/CTK/2015 ITA Nos.92&93/CTK/2016, ITA No.374/CTK/2016 & ITA No.243/CTK/2017 3. The said expenditure incurred amounting to Rs.35,88,55,396/- includes not only Periphery Development expenses

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same in the subsequent re-assessment tantamount to change of opinion and therefore is not valid. 19 ITA No.333/CTK/2014, ITA No.375/CTK/2016 ITA No.271/CTK/2017, ITA No.381/CTK/2015 ITA Nos.92&93/CTK/2016, ITA No.374/CTK/2016 & ITA No.243/CTK/2017 3. The said expenditure incurred amounting to Rs.35,88,55,396/- includes not only Periphery Development expenses

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

reassessment u/s 147 dtd. 21.03.2011 and hence, subsequent rejection of the same in the subsequent re-assessment tantamount to change of opinion and therefore is not valid. 19 ITA No.333/CTK/2014, ITA No.375/CTK/2016 ITA No.271/CTK/2017, ITA No.381/CTK/2015 ITA Nos.92&93/CTK/2016, ITA No.374/CTK/2016 & ITA No.243/CTK/2017 3. The said expenditure incurred amounting to Rs.35,88,55,396/- includes not only Periphery Development expenses

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,NFAC,DELHI, NFAC DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) & 271F of the Act, respectively. The assessment year under consideration in the above four appeals is A.Y.2015-2016. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.87/CTK/2024, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That, the reopening of the assessment beyond four years after obtaining the approval

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) & 271F of the Act, respectively. The assessment year under consideration in the above four appeals is A.Y.2015-2016. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.87/CTK/2024, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That, the reopening of the assessment beyond four years after obtaining the approval

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) & 271F of the Act, respectively. The assessment year under consideration in the above four appeals is A.Y.2015-2016. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.87/CTK/2024, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That, the reopening of the assessment beyond four years after obtaining the approval

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) & 271F of the Act, respectively. The assessment year under consideration in the above four appeals is A.Y.2015-2016. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.87/CTK/2024, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That, the reopening of the assessment beyond four years after obtaining the approval

ANALA RAM RAO,KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-2006

penalty notice based on such erroneous exercise of power by the learned Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed. (iii) That, the learned CIT (A) has committed a serious error by confirming the addition u/s 69A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 7,08,158/- which is contrary to the provisions of section

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

penalty of Rs.243.48 crores issued by the State Government, the assessee has replied to the show cause notice issued and no further action has been done by the State Government till today. It was the further submission that the Assessing P a g e 3 | 19 ITA Nos.357 & 388/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 Officer talks of unlawful mining operation

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

penalty of Rs.243.48 crores issued by the State Government, the assessee has replied to the show cause notice issued and no further action has been done by the State Government till today. It was the further submission that the Assessing P a g e 3 | 19 ITA Nos.357 & 388/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 Officer talks of unlawful mining operation

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It was the submission that there was delay of 253 days in filing of appeals before

S.B. COMBINE,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumar

penalty under section271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. It was the submission that there was delay of 253 days in filing of appeals before

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of quantum additions made for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011, respectively. 3. The assessee has also filed cross objections against the revenue’s quantum appeals all dated 21.9.2020 in respect of assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-2011. 4. As all these appeals relate to same assessee

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of quantum additions made for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011, respectively. 3. The assessee has also filed cross objections against the revenue’s quantum appeals all dated 21.9.2020 in respect of assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-2011. 4. As all these appeals relate to same assessee

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of quantum additions made for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011, respectively. 3. The assessee has also filed cross objections against the revenue’s quantum appeals all dated 21.9.2020 in respect of assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-2011. 4. As all these appeals relate to same assessee

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT.LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of quantum additions made for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011, respectively. 3. The assessee has also filed cross objections against the revenue’s quantum appeals all dated 21.9.2020 in respect of assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-2011. 4. As all these appeals relate to same assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD., ROURKELA

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of quantum additions made for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011, respectively. 3. The assessee has also filed cross objections against the revenue’s quantum appeals all dated 21.9.2020 in respect of assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-2011. 4. As all these appeals relate to same assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LIMITED, SUNDARGARH

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of quantum additions made for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011, respectively. 3. The assessee has also filed cross objections against the revenue’s quantum appeals all dated 21.9.2020 in respect of assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-2011. 4. As all these appeals relate to same assessee