ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 32(1) and, therefore, there is no question of allowing depreciation on said rights. 46. We find that the assessee has raised these additional grounds as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in W.P (C) No.24 of 2013 and Misc. Case No.5716 of 2013 order dated 20.3.2013. In view of above, we admit these

SANGRAM KESHARI SAMANTARAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHUBANESWAR

193. 2 3. We have heard both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 224 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard on merits. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

capital gains on account of sale of property and he imposed penalty which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. It was held by Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court that the contention that the penalty was liable to be set aside on account of the Commissioner (Appeals) describing the action of the assessee as "showing

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

capital gains on account of sale of property and he imposed penalty which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. It was held by Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court that the contention that the penalty was liable to be set aside on account of the Commissioner (Appeals) describing the action of the assessee as "showing

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

capital gains on account of sale of property and he imposed penalty which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. It was held by Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court that the contention that the penalty was liable to be set aside on account of the Commissioner (Appeals) describing the action of the assessee as "showing

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

capital gains on account of sale of property and he imposed penalty which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. It was held by Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court that the contention that the penalty was liable to be set aside on account of the Commissioner (Appeals) describing the action of the assessee as "showing

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

capital gains on account of sale of property and he imposed penalty which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. It was held by Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court that the contention that the penalty was liable to be set aside on account of the Commissioner (Appeals) describing the action of the assessee as "showing

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

capital gains on account of sale of property and he imposed penalty which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. It was held by Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court that the contention that the penalty was liable to be set aside on account of the Commissioner (Appeals) describing the action of the assessee as "showing

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

capital gains on account of sale of property and he imposed penalty which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. It was held by Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court that the contention that the penalty was liable to be set aside on account of the Commissioner (Appeals) describing the action of the assessee as "showing

M/S. SEAMARK BIO ORGANIC PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singh

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the heads “profits and gains of business or profession” Explanation 1 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

Capital Plus Reserve & Surplus). (Rs.). 2010-11.(A.Y.2011-12) 39,43,35,181/- 44,27,51,185/- (6.2). Thus, it is presumed that the investment has been made by the assessee out of its own interest funds without utilizing the borrowed money. Accordingly there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest expense. In holding so we find support and guidance

M/S PARAPIT PORT TRUST,CUTTACK vs. ADDL. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

gains of an assessee can be considered to have been accumulated for the purpose of genuine charity without a valid Resolution by the concerned trustee/members of a trust or an association in violation of Rule 17 of. the I.T.Rules 1962 03.Whether the accounting infirmities and irregularities detected by the competent authorities i.e. C&AG of India would not make

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CUTTACK, CUTTACK vs. PARADEEP PORT TRUST, JAGATSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

gains of an assessee can be considered to have been accumulated for the purpose of genuine charity without a valid Resolution by the concerned trustee/members of a trust or an association in violation of Rule 17 of. the I.T.Rules 1962 03.Whether the accounting infirmities and irregularities detected by the competent authorities i.e. C&AG of India would not make