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 of Rs. 20,40

M/S. MAHASAKTI FOUNDATION,KALAHANDI vs. ACIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings that were pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 6.5. The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with the first proviso to section

ITO, KHURDA vs. BULARAM DALAI, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

40 Taxmann.com 25 / (2014) 220 Taxman 34 (Mag.) (MP)(HC), there was no new material to hold that income has escaped assessment, hence reassessment was held to be not valid. The facts are that the assessment had been framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was reopened on account that assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation which

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

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

40(a)(ia) to Rs. 1,83,420/- against Rs. 10,99,693/-. 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

METRO PROJECT,KEONJHAR vs. ITO, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-2010

section u/s 147 of the Act and for which the notice u/s 148 of the Act is illegal and the assessment order should have been annulled by the learned CIT (A). 4. That, the learned CIT (A) has committed a serious error in not deleting the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 40