PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

reassessment under Section 153A, no addition can be made except based on seized material. We find that the Assessing Officer has placed a copy of the seized material at page 10 of the assessment order which clearly shows different entries recorded by the assessee including an entry of Mandir and Pooja of Rs.35 lakhs for the F.Y.2005-06. Therefore, the addition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

seizure action was conducted by Inv. Wing at the office of Sh. Himanshu Verma where various incriminating documents/ materials were seized during the course of search. During the post search investigation and perusal of seized documents it was observed that Sh. Himanshu Verma was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries by providing cheques/PO/DD in lieu of cash

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

seizure action was conducted by Inv. Wing at the office of Sh. Himanshu Verma where various incriminating documents/ materials were seized during the course of search. During the post search investigation and perusal of seized documents it was observed that Sh. Himanshu Verma was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries by providing cheques/PO/DD in lieu of cash

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BBSR vs. M/S. POSCO INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed and the

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

reassessment proceedings cannot be commenced. The assessee once again requested the assessing officer not to take any adverse view without providing the adverse finding/material in support of the allegation in the reasons for reopening and without providing effective opportunity of rebuttal as the assessee had also sought for permission to cross-examine the concerned persons who are stated to have