ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRB CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

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

depreciable assets, the Assessing Officer should have excluded Rs.51,876/- which pertained to ITA No. 566/CT K/ 2013 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 assessee’s gain on sale of assets, which was offered for taxation under the head “other income”. He observed that the Assessing Officer apparently missed to see that a sum of Rs.51,876/- was really

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

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

201 1 depreciation on Hydro, we found from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the depreciation treating it as excess claim whereas the CIT(A) in the appellate proceeding has dealt on this disputed issue on the findings of the Assessing Officer an the submission of the assessee and provisions of section

ORISSA AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

Section 43B repeatedly and the intention of Parliament, there appears to be sufficient justification for taking the view that the employees' and the employer's contribution ought to be treated in the same manner. In Alom Extrusions'case (supra), as pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court has not made any distinction between the two as similar problem of implementation would

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

depreciation on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in the business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by following the various judicial decisions including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT s. Sesa

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT-(TDS), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Vs. Acit (Tds), Acit (Tds), Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 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)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.7.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0035/17-18 For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

depreciation was allowed overlooking section 8OVVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA is applied. This being so, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal erred

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

201 of the Act. 3.2.1 The AO is of the opinion that the decision of the AP High Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd. v. CIT, which was approved by the Supreme Court in 239 ITR 58.7 (Se) .Is applicable and accordingly the assessee-was liable to deduct tax u/s.195(1). In this case

DCIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. EAST INDIA MINERALS LTD., KEONJHAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

201 1 (ii) on the acquist5in of the deposits of such mineral or group of associated minerals or of any rights in or over such deposits; or (iii) of a capital nature in respect of any building, machinery, plant or furniture for which allowance by way of depreciation is admissible under section

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

201 1- 12 are again enclosed along with this petition for your Honour's kind reference and record.] Where the enquiry had been conducted and the A.O had reached a particular conclusion, though reference to such enquiries had not been made in the order of Assessment, it was apparent from the record, without anything to show

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

depreciation than that allowable under the Income Tax Act, which was allowed by the Assessing Officer without any discussion in the Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 assessment order. Further, the CIT also found that the assessee has made payments in cash in violation of provisions of section

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

BAITARANI GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act dealing with Asse ssment Years : 2 008 -09 & 20 09- 201 0 allowance of bad debts written off by the assessee covers banking as well as non-banking assessees. He observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs CIT (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC) held as under

SANJAYA KUMAR NANDA,SUNDERGARH vs. ITO, JHARSUGUDA

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2010-2011

depreciation of Rs.1,09,270/- alleging violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. 9. From a bare perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we find that this ground does not arise out of the order of the CIT(A) and, therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1

SRI KUSHA APAT,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Cit(A), The Assessee Contended That It Has Filed Certificates Of Chartered Accountant In Respect Of 2 Nbfcs Namely;

201 3 inserted u/s.201(1) by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 and was prospective in operation. 10. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P Ld., 377 ITR 635 (Del) has held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature

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

section 133 of the Act, read with Rule 7 of the Companies (Accounts) Rule, 2014.’ As per AS-7, it is mandatory on the part of a company to follow percentage completion method to recognised revenue. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has also declared AS-7 as mandatory from F.Y. 2003-04. It is further seen that

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND ADVANCE GLOBAL EXCELLENCE (IMAGE),BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Me, Ld A.R. Of The Assessee Filed Assessment Orders For The Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-2010 Passed

Section 32, he held that the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation on leased assets and added Rs.7,68,058/- to the income of the assessee. 4. On appeal, ld CIT(A) observed that the claim of depreciation over and above claim of entire capital expenditure as application of income is not available in the Statute. No further depreciation

THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-II, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

201(1A) for failure of the appellant deductor to deduct tax under the aforesaid section and hence, demand totaling into Rs. 2,99,135,13/- raised on this score is confirmed.” P a g e 6 | 24 ITA Nos. 296, 297 & 298/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Years : 2 007 -08 , 20 08- 09 & 200 9-2 010 6. Before

THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-II, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

201(1A) for failure of the appellant deductor to deduct tax under the aforesaid section and hence, demand totaling into Rs. 2,99,135,13/- raised on this score is confirmed.” P a g e 6 | 24 ITA Nos. 296, 297 & 298/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Years : 2 007 -08 , 20 08- 09 & 200 9-2 010 6. Before