CIT v. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691)

ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

…atory and indispensable and non- compliance of same will require re-adjudication of the matter by the CIT(A). In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: 1) Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691) (para-B) 2) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subbu Shashank (327 ITR 577) (para-G) 3) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106) 4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) ix.) As regards the late deposit of employee's PF, the same shall cons…

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

ITA 39/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor and Bibhu Jain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 40A(2)(b)

…atory and indispensable and non- compliance of same will require re-adjudication of the matter by the CIT(A). In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: 1) Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691) (para-B) 2) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subbu Shashank (327 ITR 577) (para-G) 3) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106) 4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) ix.) As regards the late deposit of employee's PF, the same shall cons…

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRC CLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 355/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate 3Rd 1(2), Floor, Aayakar Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.11/Ctk/2020 (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) .327/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate Vs. Dy. Cit, Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- 3Rd Rd Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, 1(2), Floor, Aayakar J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar.. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Cross These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 19.8.2019 19.8.2019 In Appeal No.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 35A

…ndatory and indispensable and noncompliance of same will require re-adjudication of the matter by the CIT(A). In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: 1) Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691) (para-8) 2) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subbu Shashank (327 ITR 577)(para-6) 3) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106) 4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) In view of above facts and circumstances, the matter should be restored…

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 327/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate 3Rd 1(2), Floor, Aayakar Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.11/Ctk/2020 (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) .327/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate Vs. Dy. Cit, Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- 3Rd Rd Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, 1(2), Floor, Aayakar J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar.. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Cross These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 19.8.2019 19.8.2019 In Appeal No.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 35A

…ndatory and indispensable and noncompliance of same will require re-adjudication of the matter by the CIT(A). In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: 1) Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691) (para-8) 2) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subbu Shashank (327 ITR 577)(para-6) 3) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106) 4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) In view of above facts and circumstances, the matter should be restored…

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. THE ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. The Orissa State Co The Orissa State Co-Op.Milk Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Producers Federation Ltd., Producers Federation Ltd., D-2, 2, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabtt 3220 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ca B.K.Mahapatra, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 2, Bhubaneswar Dated 31.5.2017 In Appeal No In Appeal No.0251/2015-16 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 43B

…ndatory and indispensable and noncompliance of same will require re-adjudication of the matter by the CIT(A). In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: 1) Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. (320 ITR 691) (para-8) 2) Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subbu Shashank (327 ITR 577)(para-6) 3) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. United Towers (P) Ltd. (296 ITR 106) 4) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (16 taxmann.com 27) In view of above facts and circumstances, the matter is required to be…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SRI DIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1(1), Vs. Sri Dipendra Bahadur Singh, Sri Dipendra Bahadur Singh, Cuttack Hudisahi, Joda, Keonjhar Hudisahi, Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. No.Adjps 5869 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 6 /4 4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam

Section 1Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 201Section 263Section 40

…he AO was not provided any opportunity to verify such evidences. Therefore, he requested to remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh verification. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs Shree Kangra Steel pvt Ltd., 320 ITR 691 (hp) II) CIT vs Subbu Shashank, 327 ITR 577 (Mad) iii) CIT vs United Towers Pvt Ltd., 296 ITR 106(Del) iv) Manish Build Well Pvt Ltd., 16 taxmann.com 27 8. With regard to the issue of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) and second proviso being retrospective, ld CIT DR submitted that the second proviso to P a g e 5 | 9 Assessment Year : 2013-14 section…

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. PAWANJAY SPONGE IRON LTD., ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 404/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Y Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Y- Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. 20, Civil Township, 7 20, Civil Township, 7-8, Area, Rourkela Pan/Gir No. No.Addpr 7405 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra S.C.Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21 / /1/2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 68

…rebut the case. Ld CIT DR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs Ranjt Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179 (Gau) ii) C. Unnikrisnan vs CIT, 233 ITR 485 (Ker) iii) Prabhavati S Shah vs CIT, 231 ITR 1 (Bom) iv) CIT vs Shree Kangra Steel Pvt Ltd., 320 ITR 691(hp) v) CIT vs Subbu Shashank, 327 ITR 577 (Mad) vi) CIT vs United Towers Pvt Ltd., 296 ITR 106(Del)] vii) Manish Build Well PvtLtd., 16 taxmann.com 27 (Del) Further, ld CIT DR relied on the order of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of DCIT vs Genex Industries Ltd., (2019) 109 taxmann.com 402 (Chandigarh), wherein, the ld CIT(A) had accepted addit…

RAJESH VISWANATHAN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 35(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3675/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vallabhadas D. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(5)Section 44ASection 68

…aving perused the relevant materials placed on record, we are of the considered view that the case of the assessee in the present appeal falls under the exception as per clause (c) of Rule 46A(1). It has been held in CIT v. Shree Kangra Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 691 (HP) that Rule 46A(3) provides that no evidence produced under Rule 46A(1) shall be taken into account unless the AO has been given a reasonable opportunity of examining the evidence or documents produced or permitted to cross- examine the witnesses examined or permitted to produce any evidence or document in rebuttal to the additional evidence p…

DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI vs. SUNSHINE OLEOCHEM LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3729/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Sunshine Oleochem Ltd. Income Tax, 3(3)(2), (Merged With Ruchi Soya Vs. Room No. 609, 6Thfloor, Industries Ltd.) 706, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaics7296R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rajiv Khandewal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Khandewal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of M/s Sunshine Oleochem Ltd. Income Tax, 3(3)(2), (merged with Ruchi Soya Vs. Room No. 609, 6thfloor, Industries Ltd.) 706, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AAICS7296R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Mr. V. Justin, DR Assessee by : Mr. Rajiv Khandewal, AR Date of Hearing : 22/05/2018 Date of pronouncement : 30/05/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM Thi…

RAJABAHADUR B. YADAV,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4000/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajbahadur B. Yadav Ito-22(3)(3), Room No. 442, Namdev Room No. 308, 3Rd Vs. Nagar, Dighe Thane, Near Floor, Tower No. 6, Digha Bab Temple, Belapur Vashi Railway Station Road, New Complex, Navi Mumbai-400708. Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Abkpy2651C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 143Section 69

…aving perused the relevant materials placed on record, we are of the considered view that the case of the assessee in the present appeal falls under the exception as per clause (c) of Rule 46A(1). It has been held in CIT v. Shree Kangra Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 691 (HP) that Rule 46A(3) provides that no evidence produced under Rule 46A(1) Rajbahadur B. Yadav 7 shall be taken into account unless the AO has been given a reasonable opportunity of examining the evidence or documents produced or permitted to cross-examine the witnesses examined or permitted to produce any evidence or document in rebuttal to the…

CIT v. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd.

Judgments citing CIT v. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd.