Case LawHigh Court › Mr. Sunil Mishra, Advocate v. Deputy Com...

Mr. Sunil Mishra, Advocate v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range, Cuttack And Others

High Court 10 Nov 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Mr. Sunil Mishra, Advocate v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range, Cuttack And Others
Date of order
10 Nov 2021
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Mr. Sunil Mishra, Advocate v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range, Cuttack And Others, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.

Decision: The appeal is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.7 of 2004 …. M/s. Balasore Alloys Limited Appellant Mr. Sunil Mishra, Advocate -versus- …. Respondents Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Cuttack and others Mr. R.S. Chimanka, Senior Standing Counsel CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No. 04. ORDER 10.11.2021 1. For the reasons stated in the order passed today by this Court in connected ITA No.14 of 2003 (Ispat Alloys Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Cuttack and others), the question of law framed by this Court in the present appeal on 21[st] February 2005 is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Department. Accordingly, on that aspect the impugned order of the ITAT as well as the AO stands set aside and the order of the CIT (A) is restored. 2. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. S.K. Guin 3. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan