SISKHA 'O' ANUSANDHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.91/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan Vs Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad Plot No.224, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aabts 1525 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Depreciation claim 11. Refund claim 111. Cash deposit during demonetization period. 3. That thereafter by issue of Notice u/s 142(1) Ld. Assessing officer called for evidences I information in connection with the issues identified for examination. In compliance to the said notice the assessee submitted relevant Books of accounts, documents/ evidences from time to time. After verification

KAMAL KUMAR AGARWALLA,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.58/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar Kamal Kumar Agarwalla, 87, Kharavela Nagar, Unit-Iii, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaopa 1367 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla/B.L.Agarwal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Made Against The Order Dated 20.03.2021, Passed By The Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar For Doing Of De Novo Assessment Is Not Sustainable In View Of The Fact That, The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. That, Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Wrong In Directing The Ld. Assessing Officer To Make The De Novo Assessment In View Of The Fact That The Issued With Regard To The Capital Gain Was Examined By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings By Issuing Of Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 15.12.2018 & Therefore The Revisional Order Passed U/S 263 Is Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That, The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Not Justified In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) For The Purpose Of Verification Of Introduction Of Capital Which Had Been Verified By The Ld. Assessing Officer By Issuing

revise the said assessment order as per the provisions of sec.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Ld. AR further brought to our attention that the scrutiny conducted by the AO was Complete Scrutiny, however the Ld PCIT had not appreciated this fact and observed that the scrutiny done was for limited purpose only. To substantiate contentions

M/S. NARESH PHARMACEUTICAL AGENCIES,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

263, the Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing & roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. • It was held that where essential twin conditions for invoking revisionary jurisdiction U/s263, namely, impugned assessment being erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue, were not satisfied, mere alleged insufficiency of enquiry by assessing authority could

DHANESWAR RATH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL SCIENCES,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

revision u/s 263, namely (i) the order is erroneous (ii) by virtue of being erroneous, and prejudice has been caused to the interests of the Revenue. 20. For the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has to be preceded

M/S. ADITYA EARTH MOVERS,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. CIT, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

263 of the Act, to revise the assessment order passed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act, is mere change of opinion by the Ld. CIT, Cuttack Charge. For the reasons that the issue as regards to depreciation

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.

depreciation of Rs.1,34,85,465/- and MAT credit of Rs.26,33,135/- was not under Limited Scrutiny, hence, the AO has not enquired into the matter while passing the assessment order. Although both the issues were not under limited scrutiny but from the spirit and mandate of section 263 of the Act, which provides revisional powers to Pr. CIT/CIT

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

depreciation of Rs.l,34,85,465/- and MAT credit of Rs.26,33,135/- was not under Limited Scrutiny, hence, the AO has not enquired into the matter while passing the assessment order. Although both the issues were not under limited scrutiny but from the spirit and mandate of section 263 of the Act, which provides revisional powers

JAMUNA REALTY PVT. LTD. ,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the direction to the AO herein given above

u/s. 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 Income tax Act, 1961, dated 10.6.2020 of the Pr. CIT, Cuttack for the 10.6.2020 of the Pr. CIT, Cuttack for the assessment year 2015 assessment year 2015-16. 2. Although the assessee Although the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal, but the has raised various grounds of appeal, but the effective

M/S. L.A.DEVELOPERS,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-2009 2009 M/S. M/S. L.A.Developers, L.A.Developers, Hig Hig-47, Vs. Cit, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Jayadev Jayadev Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aacfl 6157 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 /6/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 / /6/2022 O R D E R

263 of the Act of the CIT the Act of the CIT, Bhubaneswar dated 9.3.2015 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2008-2009. 2. Shri P.C.Sethi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri P.C.Sethi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri P.C.Sethi, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam

M/S. MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

revising the assessment order, which has also been mentioned in show cause notice issued under section 263 of the Act, therefore, it cannot be alleged that the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. However, Ld CIT DR, in all fairness, submitted that in pursuance to the impugned revisional order u/s.263

KALINGA INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY (KIIT),PATIA vs. CIT (EXEMP.) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Hyderabad 384, 384, Kiit Kiit Campus Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Ag This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Ainst The Order Of The Ld Cit(E), Hyderabad Hyderabad Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Dated Dated 14.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1040690424(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

u/s 263 to intervene in the matter. An inquiry which is just farce or mere pretence of inquiry, cannot be said to be an inquiry at all, much less an inquiry needed to reach the level of satisfaction of the AO on the given issue. The level of satisfaction would obviously mean that he has conducted the inquiry

RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

depreciation was charged in respect of Shanti Mall, Rourkela since it was not put to use. On the other hand, vide letter dated 11.01.2016, it was alleged that the appellant company had transferred the capital expenditure of Rs.13,57,62,768/- to fixed assets. Interest of Rs.37,95,622/- was also allocated to various fixed assets. As regards the first

POSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.253/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Posco India Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Unit No.Dcb 903, 9Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Idco Info Park, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Aadcp 6735 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra & A.K.Sabat, Cas राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit, Bhubaneswar-1, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1063289089(1) For The Assessment Year 2020-2021, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Case, The Order Passed On 24.03.2024 U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short "I.T.Act "I "Act"] Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar [In Short "Pcit"] [Vide Din & Order No :Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1063289089(1)}, In Directing The Learned Assessing Officer [In Short "Ao"] To Examine The Issue Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice, Contrary To Facts, Arbitrary & Erroneous & Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts & Legally Untenable. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Case, The. Notice Dated 05.02.2024 U/S.263 Of The Act & The Assuming Of Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act By The Learned Pcit Is Contrary To Facts, Arbitrary, Erroneous & Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts & Legally Untenable.

u/s. 263 of the Act by holding that the order dated 20.09.2022 is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is unwarranted, unjustified, bad in law, and legally untenable and the direction of remitting back it to the learned AO for his examination is unwarranted, unjustified, bad in law, and legally untenable. 7. That

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

Depreciation allowable Rs. 34,35,249/- D. Income from business Rs. 21,47,463/- E. Income from house property Rs. 87,115/- F. Income from other sources Rs. 7,63,190/- Gross total income Rs.29,97,768/- Less; Deduction u/s.,8OC Rs. 1,00,000/- Total income Rs. 28,97,768/- Or, u/s. 288A Rs. 28,97,770/- Assessed u/s

M/S. BHAGABATI BUILD & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. M/S. Bhagbati Bhagbati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit,-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Cuttack Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 / /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

u/s 32 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also allowed depreciation from the estimated profit stating therein that “considering the volume of the business of the assessee, the depreciation is allowed separately on the estimated profit 8% of gross receipts. The Ld. Pr.CIT observed that the AO’s remark that he had allowed depreciation “considering the volume of business

KALPANA MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

depreciation which were not subject of 'limited scrutiny', Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by enquiring into issues beyond scope of 'limited scrutiny' and thus, the impugned order was to be quashed. Cases relied on / referred to: a) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 97 Taxman 358/229 ITR 383 (SC) b) Vijay Kumar v. ITO [IT Appeal

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.379/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Industrial Development Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) M/S Industrial Development Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra,Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 15.06.2017 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhubaneswar, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita

depreciation brought forward from earlier years of Rs.28,80,98,231/-, he assessed income of the year at Rs. 41,91,96,769/-, rounded off to Rs.41,91,96,770/-. Further the assessment was completed u/s.263/143(3) of the Act dated 30.07.2014 determining total income at Rs.94,73,96,770/-. Subsequently, the assessment u/s.147/251/143(3) of the Act was completed

THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.379/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Industrial Development Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) M/S Industrial Development Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra,Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 15.06.2017 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhubaneswar, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita

depreciation brought forward from earlier years of Rs.28,80,98,231/-, he assessed income of the year at Rs. 41,91,96,769/-, rounded off to Rs.41,91,96,770/-. Further the assessment was completed u/s.263/143(3) of the Act dated 30.07.2014 determining total income at Rs.94,73,96,770/-. Subsequently, the assessment u/s.147/251/143(3) of the Act was completed

M/S. SREERAM TRADERS,CUTTACK vs. CIT, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

u/s. 263 passed by the learned CIT setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer, restoring the file of the AO is illegal, arbitrary, uncalled for and against the facts on record. 2. That the learned AO had legally completed the assessment after due scrutiny and examination of books of accounts produced before him, even learned CIT has observed that

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

263 [SC] ii) CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd 216 CTR 195[SC] iii) CIT, Meerut Vs M/s VAN Resorts & Hotels (P) Ltd. Allahabad HC iii) CIT, Meerut Vs Nav Bharat Duples Ltd. Allahabad HC iv) CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalities Pvt Ltd & UP Bone Mills India Ltd. Delhi HC v) Vijay power generators Ltd & Director of Income Tax, Delhi