PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

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

49,28,847 76,70,02,487 (7,38,48,052) Application (B-A) The assessee humbly request your goodself to consider the revised computation furnished at this stage and oblige. On a perusal of the above revised computation prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, it may kindly be noted that there

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

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

49,28,847 76,70,02,487 (7,38,48,052) Application (B-A) The assessee humbly request your goodself to consider the revised computation furnished at this stage and oblige. On a perusal of the above revised computation prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, it may kindly be noted that there

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

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

49,28,847 76,70,02,487 (7,38,48,052) Application (B-A) The assessee humbly request your goodself to consider the revised computation furnished at this stage and oblige. On a perusal of the above revised computation prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, it may kindly be noted that there

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price agreed between them and JV’s and in turn JV’s has raised the bills to the principal at the rate awarded in the tender. The principal has made the payment to the JV after making TDS and then payments were released to both the constituents according to their bills. Thereafter the returns of income were filed

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price agreed between them and JV’s and in turn JV’s has raised the bills to the principal at the rate awarded in the tender. The principal has made the payment to the JV after making TDS and then payments were released to both the constituents according to their bills. Thereafter the returns of income were filed

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price agreed between them and JV’s and in turn JV’s has raised the bills to the principal at the rate awarded in the tender. The principal has made the payment to the JV after making TDS and then payments were released to both the constituents according to their bills. Thereafter the returns of income were filed

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price agreed between them and JV’s and in turn JV’s has raised the bills to the principal at the rate awarded in the tender. The principal has made the payment to the JV after making TDS and then payments were released to both the constituents according to their bills. Thereafter the returns of income were filed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price agreed between them and JV’s and in turn JV’s has raised the bills to the principal at the rate awarded in the tender. The principal has made the payment to the JV after making TDS and then payments were released to both the constituents according to their bills. Thereafter the returns of income were filed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price agreed between them and JV’s and in turn JV’s has raised the bills to the principal at the rate awarded in the tender. The principal has made the payment to the JV after making TDS and then payments were released to both the constituents according to their bills. Thereafter the returns of income were filed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price agreed between them and JV’s and in turn JV’s has raised the bills to the principal at the rate awarded in the tender. The principal has made the payment to the JV after making TDS and then payments were released to both the constituents according to their bills. Thereafter the returns of income were filed

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including the deficient enquiry conducted

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

49,480/-. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (Appeals) Cuttack and then before the Hon'ble ITAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and the income was finally recomputed at RS.43,83,32,884/-. 2. That the assessment was again reopened u/s.147/148 of the IT Act, 1961 for the reasons recorded by the AO as under:- "As per the report

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

49,480/-. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (Appeals) Cuttack and then before the Hon'ble ITAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and the income was finally recomputed at RS.43,83,32,884/-. 2. That the assessment was again reopened u/s.147/148 of the IT Act, 1961 for the reasons recorded by the AO as under:- "As per the report