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

1 [Ramond wollen Mills vs ITO (1999) 236ITR 34 (SC)] 2 (b) At the initiation stage, what is required is reason to believe, but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Whether

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

13. It is an admitted fact that the revenue has not placed the approval under section 153D of the Act before the Tribunal as mentioned earlier. The Tribunal has no business to call for the approval unless a specific allegation has been raised 15 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 through affidavit under Rule 10 of the ITAT Rules. Obviously, when the affidavit

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

13. It is an admitted fact that the revenue has not placed the approval under section 153D of the Act before the Tribunal as mentioned earlier. The Tribunal has no business to call for the approval unless a specific allegation has been raised 15 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 through affidavit under Rule 10 of the ITAT Rules. Obviously, when the affidavit

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT ,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

13. It is an admitted fact that the revenue has not placed the approval under section 153D of the Act before the Tribunal as mentioned earlier. The Tribunal has no business to call for the approval unless a specific allegation has been raised 15 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 through affidavit under Rule 10 of the ITAT Rules. Obviously, when the affidavit

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

13. It is an admitted fact that the revenue has not placed the approval under section 153D of the Act before the Tribunal as mentioned earlier. The Tribunal has no business to call for the approval unless a specific allegation has been raised 15 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 through affidavit under Rule 10 of the ITAT Rules. Obviously, when the affidavit

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

13. It is an admitted fact that the revenue has not placed the approval under section 153D of the Act before the Tribunal as mentioned earlier. The Tribunal has no business to call for the approval unless a specific allegation has been raised 15 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 through affidavit under Rule 10 of the ITAT Rules. Obviously, when the affidavit

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

13. It is an admitted fact that the revenue has not placed the approval under section 153D of the Act before the Tribunal as mentioned earlier. The Tribunal has no business to call for the approval unless a specific allegation has been raised 15 ITA Nos.76-81/CTK/2022 through affidavit under Rule 10 of the ITAT Rules. Obviously, when the affidavit

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

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

B Less: Application 2,25,54,602 3,01,35,769 3,69,39,968 Revenue exp. 1,8855,075 2,24,82,082 1,14,01,321 Development exp. C Total 4,14,09,677 5,26,17,851 4,83,41,522 application D Surplus/Deficit (1,59,34,478) (1

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B Less: Application 2,25,54,602 3,01,35,769 3,69,39,968 Revenue exp. 1,8855,075 2,24,82,082 1,14,01,321 Development exp. C Total 4,14,09,677 5,26,17,851 4,83,41,522 application D Surplus/Deficit (1,59,34,478) (1

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B Less: Application 2,25,54,602 3,01,35,769 3,69,39,968 Revenue exp. 1,8855,075 2,24,82,082 1,14,01,321 Development exp. C Total 4,14,09,677 5,26,17,851 4,83,41,522 application D Surplus/Deficit (1,59,34,478) (1

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

B Less: Application 2,25,54,602 3,01,35,769 3,69,39,968 Revenue exp. 1,8855,075 2,24,82,082 1,14,01,321 Development exp. C Total 4,14,09,677 5,26,17,851 4,83,41,522 application D Surplus/Deficit (1,59,34,478) (1

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B Less: Application 2,25,54,602 3,01,35,769 3,69,39,968 Revenue exp. 1,8855,075 2,24,82,082 1,14,01,321 Development exp. C Total 4,14,09,677 5,26,17,851 4,83,41,522 application D Surplus/Deficit (1,59,34,478) (1

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

B Less: Application 2,25,54,602 3,01,35,769 3,69,39,968 Revenue exp. 1,8855,075 2,24,82,082 1,14,01,321 Development exp. C Total 4,14,09,677 5,26,17,851 4,83,41,522 application D Surplus/Deficit (1,59,34,478) (1

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B Less: Application 2,25,54,602 3,01,35,769 3,69,39,968 Revenue exp. 1,8855,075 2,24,82,082 1,14,01,321 Development exp. C Total 4,14,09,677 5,26,17,851 4,83,41,522 application D Surplus/Deficit (1,59,34,478) (1

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

B Less: Application 2,25,54,602 3,01,35,769 3,69,39,968 Revenue exp. 1,8855,075 2,24,82,082 1,14,01,321 Development exp. C Total 4,14,09,677 5,26,17,851 4,83,41,522 application D Surplus/Deficit (1,59,34,478) (1

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

B Less: Application 2,25,54,602 3,01,35,769 3,69,39,968 Revenue exp. 1,8855,075 2,24,82,082 1,14,01,321 Development exp. C Total 4,14,09,677 5,26,17,851 4,83,41,522 application D Surplus/Deficit (1,59,34,478) (1

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

B Less: Application 2,25,54,602 3,01,35,769 3,69,39,968 Revenue exp. 1,8855,075 2,24,82,082 1,14,01,321 Development exp. C Total 4,14,09,677 5,26,17,851 4,83,41,522 application D Surplus/Deficit (1,59,34,478) (1