M/S. POWERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.206/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Powerware India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 6A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp 1607 R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 36(l)(va) of the Income-tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in holding that the provision for gratuity was not made towards approved gratuity fund and that the gratuity has not become payable during the financial year and that the provision has not been made

M/S. KALINGA INSTITUTE OF TRAINING FOR SECURITY & CONSULTANCY SERVICES,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 36(l)(va) of the Income-tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in holding that the provision for gratuity was not made towards approved gratuity fund and that the gratuity has not become payable during the financial year and that the provision has not been made

M/S. KALINGA INSTITUTE OF TRAINING FOR SECURITY & CONSULTANCY SERVICES,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 36(l)(va) of the Income-tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in holding that the provision for gratuity was not made towards approved gratuity fund and that the gratuity has not become payable during the financial year and that the provision has not been made

SUJATA NAYAK,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Smt.Sujata Sujata Nayak Nayak, W/O. Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Shri Lokanath Nayak, Omp Rayagada Road, Indira Nagar, 6Th Lane, Road, Indira Nagar, 6 Po;Dist: Rayagada Po;Dist: Rayagada Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Addpn 2024 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar : Ms Archita Nayak, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01 /01/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13 , Berhampur, In Appeal No.0055/13-14 Dated Dated 31.7.2014 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. Ms Archita Nayak, Ms Archita Nayak, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

36 and courier copy enclosed) That thereafter the appellant has decided to apply for VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME 2020 and filed Form 1 and 2 under VIVAD SE VISWAS SCHEME 2020. Appellant has received Form 3 from the Pr. CIT, Sambalpur and as per the direction of Pr. CIT, Sambalpur, Appellant has deposited the amount and filed Form

BAITARANI GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

condone the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Ground No.1 is general in nature and hence, requires no separate adjudication by us. 4. Ground No.4 of the appeal is not pressed by ld A.R. of the assessee, hence, same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. In Ground No.2

PATEL-ARSS JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

BACKBONE ARSS JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

ARSS-GVR JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

ARSS TRIVENI JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

NIRAJ-ARSS JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.81/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2012-2013) Hcil Adhikarya Arss Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaefh 3757 R & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.82 & 112/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Arss Atlanta Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaqfa 8726 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.83 & 113/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Anpr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1158 M & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.84 & 116/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14 & 2012-13) M/S Arss Triveni Jv Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aabaa 1081 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.85/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Arss-Gvr Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aacaa 1049 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.86 & 111/Ctk/2018 (A.Y.2013-2014 & 2012-2013) M/S Niraj Arss Jv Vs. Ito Ward-4(3), Plot No.38, Sector-A, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No.Aaaan 5116 B

condone the delay in aforesaid appeals and all the appeals along with other appeals are heard on merits. 5. Though the assessees in all these appeals are different, however, issues involved in these appeals are common, therefore, they are heard altogether and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST,CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AAYAKAR BHAWAN

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

SAHOO DIOSTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

SAHOO DISTRIBNUTORS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,SHELTER SQUARE,

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, when the reassessment