M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

depreciation to the file of AO for further verification and pass order as per law after considering the 8 ITA No.333/CTK/2014, ITA No.375/CTK/2016 ITA No.271/CTK/2017, ITA No.381/CTK/2015 ITA Nos.92&93/CTK/2016, ITA No.374/CTK/2016 & ITA No.243/CTK/2017 documents/evidences. Needless to say, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

depreciation to the file of AO for further verification and pass order as per law after considering the 8 ITA No.333/CTK/2014, ITA No.375/CTK/2016 ITA No.271/CTK/2017, ITA No.381/CTK/2015 ITA Nos.92&93/CTK/2016, ITA No.374/CTK/2016 & ITA No.243/CTK/2017 documents/evidences. Needless to say, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

depreciation to the file of AO for further verification and pass order as per law after considering the 8 ITA No.333/CTK/2014, ITA No.375/CTK/2016 ITA No.271/CTK/2017, ITA No.381/CTK/2015 ITA Nos.92&93/CTK/2016, ITA No.374/CTK/2016 & ITA No.243/CTK/2017 documents/evidences. Needless to say, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DICT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

depreciation to the file of AO for further verification and pass order as per law after considering the 8 ITA No.333/CTK/2014, ITA No.375/CTK/2016 ITA No.271/CTK/2017, ITA No.381/CTK/2015 ITA Nos.92&93/CTK/2016, ITA No.374/CTK/2016 & ITA No.243/CTK/2017 documents/evidences. Needless to say, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

depreciation to the file of AO for further verification and pass order as per law after considering the 8 ITA No.333/CTK/2014, ITA No.375/CTK/2016 ITA No.271/CTK/2017, ITA No.381/CTK/2015 ITA Nos.92&93/CTK/2016, ITA No.374/CTK/2016 & ITA No.243/CTK/2017 documents/evidences. Needless to say, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (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 : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

penalties for violation under such acts.” Further, the CEC have observed as under: “However, the mineral produced without environmental clearances or beyond the quantity prescribed in the Environment Clearance or P a g e 12 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 approved Mining Plan/ Scheme of Mining does not, for the purpose of Sec.21(5) of MMDR

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (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 : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

penalties for violation under such acts.” Further, the CEC have observed as under: “However, the mineral produced without environmental clearances or beyond the quantity prescribed in the Environment Clearance or P a g e 12 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 approved Mining Plan/ Scheme of Mining does not, for the purpose of Sec.21(5) of MMDR

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.11.2022, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047723977(1) for the assessment year 2015-2016. 4. As the issues in all the appeals are interconnected and relating to the same assessee, therefore, all these appeals are disposed off by this common order

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.11.2022, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047723977(1) for the assessment year 2015-2016. 4. As the issues in all the appeals are interconnected and relating to the same assessee, therefore, all these appeals are disposed off by this common order

SUDERSHAN BHUYAN,BALASORE vs. JCIT, BALASORE RANGE, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2009-2010 Assessment Year: 2009-2010

depreciation of Rs.23,916/- and dismiss this ground of appeal. 7. In Ground No.4 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9,906/- towards expenditure against repair and maintenance of assets which is proportionate to Rs.54,570/-. 8. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders

FAHMIDA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No. A No.69/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2008-2009 It(Ss)A No. A No.50/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2009-2010

depreciation. 19. Ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made an assessment of Rs.15,39,73,507/-, which had been reduced by the ld CIT(A) to Rs.1,54,98,904/-. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) ought not to have considered the audit report of the assessee to reduce the income. 20. In reply

FAHMIDA INTERNATIONAL (P) LIMITED,BHUBANWEAWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No. A No.69/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2008-2009 It(Ss)A No. A No.50/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2009-2010

depreciation. 19. Ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made an assessment of Rs.15,39,73,507/-, which had been reduced by the ld CIT(A) to Rs.1,54,98,904/-. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) ought not to have considered the audit report of the assessee to reduce the income. 20. In reply

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

Depreciation IN01.04: Large investment in property (Form 26QB) as compared to total income With respect to your income for the year under consideration, kindly submit the below specified details: 1. Copy of Computation of income for A.Y.2018-19 and Final Accounts 2. Detailed note on during F.Y.2017-18. 3. Detailed address of Br offices, site offices etc. 4. Details of various , loan

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

penalty and is fully allowable under the Income tax Act and the non non-deduction of the same is based on irrelevant considerations, presumptions, conjectures and surmises, contrary to facts, unjustified, erroneous, arbitrary and bad in law. 7. Non-deduction/ Disallowance of loss in respect of valuation of stores and spares - Rs. 404,494/- a. That on the facts

MS SHIVA JYOTI CONSTRUCTION,AT- PATTAMUNDAI vs. AO, NEAFC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-2019 2019 M/S. M/S. Shiva Shiva Jyoti Jyoti Vs. The The Assessing Assessing Officer, Officer, Construction, At: Patrapur, Construction, At: Patrapur, Nfac, Delhi Nfac, Delhi Pattamundai, Kendrapara Pattamundai, Kendrapara Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Abqfs 8602 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

depreciation over a turnover of Rs. 1,03,64,,45,352.00 thereby disclose taxable income at Rs.3, 42, 42,760.00 in the return. The appellant also received interest income on income tax refund and fixed deposits made in order to procure works contract by way of earnest money and security deposits. The copy of the audited financial statements is enclosed

MODERN ENGLISH SCHOOL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KORAPUT vs. ITO (EXEMPTION WARD), BERHAMPUR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Modern Modern English English School School Vs. Ito (Exemption Ward) Ito (Exemption Ward) Education Education Society, Society, Berhampur Berhampur Parabeda, Parabeda, Jeypore, Jeypore, Dist: Dist: Koraput Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aacam 7223 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv/Kailash Panigrahi, Ca P.K.Mishra, Adv/Kailash Panigrahi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 /0 04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18 /0 /04/2023 O R D E R

penalty order on 3.2.2023, it was known that the appeal before the ld CIT(A) was disposed. It was in this backdrop that the appeal could not be filed within the due time and consequently, there was delay of 385 days. It is submitted that there is no evil intention of the appellant society in not filing the appeal

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

penalty consequences flow from such an order against the assessee. The approval of Supervisory officer is totally distinct from the assessment order and not required to be communicated. Hence it is not open for challenge before the Court of Law. Once the reasons for Administrative Approval are not required to be communicated to the assessee then it is not permissible

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

penalty consequences flow from such an order against the assessee. The approval of Supervisory officer is totally distinct from the assessment order and not required to be communicated. Hence it is not open for challenge before the Court of Law. Once the reasons for Administrative Approval are not required to be communicated to the assessee then it is not permissible