JAY KISHORE CHOUBEY,RAIRANGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2010-11 (Ajay Kumar Gupta) Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward - 1 , Jaipur It is also noted that none of the additions based on the above reasons had been made in the assessment proceedings. The additions made are on the following reasons:- 1. Accumulation of Income under section

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.

u/s. 147 of the Act. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Yogeshbhai R Dhanak V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax (2014) 41 taxmann.com 183 on similar facts has held as under: “Section 147, read with section 158BC of the Income tax Act, 1961- income escaping assessment-Non disclosure of primary facts (Matter relating to b lock

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessed the total income at Rs.l 1,86,16,790/-. 12. The claim of the assessee with regard to the said Rs.11,70,84,000/- under "provision for doubtful debts" is within the limits prescribed under section 36(l)(viia)(a) of the I.T.Act. 13. It is pertinent to note that the learned Assessing Officer in disallowing /adding the aforesaid

M/S BSN JOSHI & SONS LTD,KHURDA vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2003-2004

12. This is so, since the reassessment proceedings are commenced under section 147 of the Act, and the first proviso to section 147 mandates, inter alia, that where an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act has been made, no action shall be taken under section 147 of the Act, after the expiry of four years from

INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOY LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

12. It was further submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was also in line with the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: 320 ITR 561(SC). The relevant observations of the apex Court are as under: "On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

12. It was further submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was also in line with the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: 320 ITR 561(SC). The relevant observations of the apex Court are as under: "On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section

INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011

u/s. 147 and communicated the same to the assessee. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the provisions of law, the ground raised by the assessee against reassessment proceeding is dismissed being devoid of any merit.” 7. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that no new material

ITO, KHURDA vs. BULARAM DALAI, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 147 of the I. T. Ac,1961" when the Revenue Audit party has pointed out the omission in the original assessment order and the omission pointed out by the Audit Party constitute a new and tangible material for reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JHARSUGUDA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, JHARSUGUDA vs. HIRAKHAND TRANSPORT AND MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BRAJARAJ NAGAR

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.282/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1, Jharsuguda Vs Hirakhand Transport & Multi Purpose Cooperative Society Pvt. Ltd., At-Chingriguda, Bijapara, R Kudopali, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda-768216 Pan No. :Aaaah 5874 Q & प्रत्याक्षेऩ सं/Cross Objection No.04/Ctk/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.282/Ctk/2024) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Hirakhand Transport & Multi Vs Ito, Ward-1, Jharsuguda Purpose Cooperative Society Pvt. Ltd., At-Chingriguda, Bijapara, R Kudopali, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda-768216 Pan No. :Aaaah 5874 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Agrawala, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15.05.2024, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1064895008(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

147 alive which has become infructuous, is bad in law. 10. For that provisions of section 40A(2)(b) are not applicable to cooperative societies per se and hence disallowance invoking section 40A(2) (b) is bad in law. 11. For that there is clear-cut distinction between reporting requirement in Form 3CD by the Tax Auditor and disallowance

CHHABI LATA SAHU,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, ROURKELA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Chhabi Lata Sahu Ito, Ward-4, Rourkela

u/s 148 dated 16.07.2014. It was the submission that the reopening is being proposed beyond the period of four years and there is requirement that there should be fresh material and the assessee has not fully and truly disclose all the material facts necessary for the assessment. It was the submission that on perusal of the reasons recorded it clearly

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT

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

12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed written synopsis, which is as under: “It is pertinent to mention that the application for claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the assessment year 2006-07 was rejected by the CCIT