Case LawHigh Court › Mr. T.k. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel...

Mr. T.k. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel v. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd., Bhubaneswar

High Court 07 Feb 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Mr. T.k. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel v. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd., Bhubaneswar
Date of order
07 Feb 2024
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mr. T.k. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel v. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd., Bhubaneswar, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: Thus, the Appeal is dismissed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

Digitally SignedSigned by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKARDesignation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior SecretaryReason: AuthenticationLocation: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACKDate: 23-Apr-2024 17:11:20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.145 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhubaneswar …. Appellant (s) Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel -versus- Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd., Bhubaneswar …. Respondent (s) Mr. S. Jolly, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI MR JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER 07.02.2024 Order No. 12. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. Judgment prepared in separate sheets is delivered and pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and the order is passed accordingly as follows:- 3. In the present case, the assessing officer has not relied on any new material which has come to light after the initial assessment on 31.12.2011. Even as regards the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Assessing Officer did not form a decision on the basis of any fresh or new material. Rather, the same material Digitally SignedSigned by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKARDesignation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior SecretaryReason: AuthenticationLocation: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACKDate: 23-Apr-2024 17:11:20 has been relied on to initiate reassessment. Moreover, no suppression of information has been proved. In light of this, there is no need to interfere with the finding of the tribunal. Thus, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. (Dr.S.K.Panigrahi) Judge (G.Satapathy) Judge B. Jhankar
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 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