DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

234 ITR 220 (Delhi), AGR Investment Ltd. v. Addl.\nCIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 62/197 Taxman 177/333 ITR 146\n(Delhi), Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34\n(SC) and Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007]\n161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), cited by learned Counsel for the\nrevenue, bear on the aspect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

234 ITR 220 (Delhi), AGR Investment Ltd. v. Addl.\nCIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 62/197 Taxman 177/333 ITR 146\n(Delhi), Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34\n(SC) and Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007]\n161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), cited by learned Counsel for the\nrevenue, bear on the aspect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

234 ITR 220 (Delhi), AGR Investment Ltd. v. Addl.\nCIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 62/197 Taxman 177/333 ITR 146\n(Delhi), Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34\n(SC) and Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007]\n161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), cited by learned Counsel for the\nrevenue, bear on the aspect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

234 ITR 220 (Delhi), AGR Investment Ltd. v. Addl.\nCIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 62/197 Taxman 177/333 ITR 146\n(Delhi), Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34\n(SC) and Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007]\n161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC), cited by learned Counsel for the\nrevenue, bear on the aspect

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to 14 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carried on the works contract and was not a sub-contractor carrying on the works contract

KENDRAPARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KENDRAPADA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.163/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Pr.Cit, Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara-754211 Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Dated 24.03.2020, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026884702(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Through Its Secretary Has Filed An Application Dated 13.07.2020 Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object. In View Of The Above, Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.11.2017. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was A Limited Scrutiny

capital in nature. Assessee debited an amount of Rs. 15,83,130/- in its P&L account towards provision for doubtful debts. This being provision for diminution in value of trade receivables in the balance sheet, had to be added to profit for computation of book profit. This has resulted in short assessment of income under

ABHIMANYU SAHU,BUXIPALLI vs. PCIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

capital in nature. Assessee debited an amount of Rs. 15,83,130/- in its P&L account towards provision for doubtful debts. This being provision for diminution in value of trade receivables in the balance sheet, had to be added to profit for computation of book profit. This has resulted in short assessment of income under

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