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) ..

v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 1109, as follows (at page 69): "The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept in the file, because such

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) ..

v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 1109, as follows (at page 69): "The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept in the file, because such

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) ..

v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 1109, as follows (at page 69): "The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept in the file, because such

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) ..

v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 1109, as follows (at page 69): "The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept in the file, because such

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) ..

v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 1109, as follows (at page 69): "The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept in the file, because such

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) ..

v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 1109, as follows (at page 69): "The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept in the file, because such

MGM GREEN ENERGY 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.370/Ctk/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Mgm Green Energy Limited, Vs Jcit, Range Rourkela, Rourkela 5-A, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aahcm 8472 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh A.K.Sabat & Sh B.K.Mahapatra, Cas राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1. Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.06.2019, In I.T.Appeal No.0388/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Assessee Has Taken As Many As Six Grounds Of Appeal, Relating To Various Additions/Disallowances Made To The Income Declared By The Assessee & Also Against The Adjustments Made In The Book Profit U/S.115Jb Of The Act. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- I) The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Which Is Arbitrary, Erroneous & Bad, Both In The Eyes Of Law. Ii) Disallowance Of Interest Expenses U/S.36(Iii) Of The Act At Rs.1,65,18,400/-; Iii) Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.14A Of The Act/Rule 8D Of It Rules At Rs.2,44,82,488/-; Iv) Addition Of Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.14A At Rs.2,44,82,488/- In The Book Profit As Computed U/S 115Jb; V) Addition/Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.115Jb Of The Act Under The Book Profits; Vi) Disallowance Of Differential Depreciation Of Rs.1,16,63,697/-

depreciation reserves and, thus, entire investment had been made in sister concern out of interest-free funds - Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's contention and directed Assessing Officer to allow entire amount of interest under section 36(1)(iii) - Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) - On instant appeal, it was seen that Commissioner (Appeals) as 10 also Tribunal had recorded

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.

v.) Since the A.O. had granted excess interest u/s.244A to the assessee, it was a mistake apparent from the record and rectification u/s. 154 could not be faulted with. When the A.O. has ignored or overlooked mandatory provisions of law, it will constitute a mistake apparent from the record. vi.) The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

THE DHAMRA PORT COMPANY LIMITED,ODISHA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(2), BHUBANESWAR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RAJASWA VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR, ORISSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the direction

36 deduction of Rs.416.03 crores under the whichever is lower" 18 Para 7.2 clause (iia) of Explanation - 1 to Section on year-on-year Para 3 115JB as against Rs.221.70 crores claimed basis as against in return of income. cumulative basis while computing As working of Rs.416.03 crore was also book profits. supported by express provisions

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

36,15,690/- which also included depreciation of Rs.40,35,943/-. In view of above facts, it was crystal clear that the assessee company had started commercial operations in F.Y. 2008-09 itself. The claim of the assessee that it had done only trial run and that the commercial production began after 31.03.2009, was found to be false. Accordingly

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

36,15,690/- which also included depreciation of Rs.40,35,943/-. In view of above facts, it was crystal clear that the assessee company had started commercial operations in F.Y. 2008-09 itself. The claim of the assessee that it had done only trial run and that the commercial production began after 31.03.2009, was found to be false. Accordingly

M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

36,15,690/- which also included depreciation of Rs.40,35,943/-. In view of above facts, it was crystal clear that the assessee company had started commercial operations in F.Y. 2008-09 itself. The claim of the assessee that it had done only trial run and that the commercial production began after 31.03.2009, was found to be false. Accordingly

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

36 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

36 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

36 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

36 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

36 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

36 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

36 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Since the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) are similar, the same interpretation will hold good