DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation\npetition that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation\npetition that

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

u/s 147 rws 144 of the previous\nAY, i.e. 2013-14 & 147 rws 1448 for AY 2016-17 (which is under\nappeal in ITA No 565 fixed for hearing today) on similar issue, the\nLd AO, on perusal of the similar documents submitted before him\nhad accepted the credits to be realisation from Sales and Debtors.\nRequesting your kind attention

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

reassessment was bad in law for failure to issue notice to the Assessee under section 143(2) of the Act?” The Hon’ble Orissa High Court is answering the question, held as follows: “”3. As far as Question No.(iii) is concerned , Mr. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department raises preliminary objection that this issue was not raised

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

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 of the Ld. Addl

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

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 of the Ld. Addl

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

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 of the Ld. Addl

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

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 of the Ld. Addl

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s. 37 of the Act was calculated at RS.60,54,017/- [8800 x 1447.72 x 47.52%]. Hence, it was believed that the income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.60,45,017/- has escaped assessment for the year under consideration". 3. That the basic condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction/power u/s.147/148 of the IT Act, 1961 is missing in present case

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s. 37 of the Act was calculated at RS.60,54,017/- [8800 x 1447.72 x 47.52%]. Hence, it was believed that the income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.60,45,017/- has escaped assessment for the year under consideration". 3. That the basic condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction/power u/s.147/148 of the IT Act, 1961 is missing in present case

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.

c. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the charging of interest of Rs.4,74,56,121/- and Rs.21,14,969/-u/s 2348 and 234C of the Act respectively by the learned Assessing Officer, being unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts, and legally untenable ought to be deleted. 10. That

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and 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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and 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

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

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 Per Bench These are These are appeals filed by the assessee against the filed by the assessee against the separate orders

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

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 Per Bench These are These are appeals filed by the assessee against the filed by the assessee against the separate orders

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

147 are null and void and the Assessing Officer had no tangible material to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that there was no illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C

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

147 are null and void and the Assessing Officer had no tangible material to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that there was no illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C

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

147 are null and void and the Assessing Officer had no tangible material to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that there was no illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C