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

37(1) as well as section 40A(1O) of the Act. 5. Ld D.R. though relied on the orders of lower authorities but Id not cite any contrary decisions before us. 20. After considering the rival submissions and perusing materials available on record, we find that the issue at hand is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Kerala

RIO TINTO ORISSA MINING PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 37(1) of the Act, there is no requirement of the legislature that there must be business income then only the assessee can claim expenditure which was expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. The existence of assessee company is not in dispute and quantum of impugned business expenditure as well

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/-

4. So far as Question (b) is concerned, the impugned order of the Tribunal followed its decision in M/s Essar Teleholdings Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3850/Mum/2010 to held that an amount disallowed under Section 14-A of the Act cannot be added to arrive at book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act. The Revenue

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

37,74,074/- under 'Trial Operation expenses' is incorrect, contrary to facts, arbitrary and erroneous. 5. Disallowance under "Prior period adjustments" - Rs. 21,07,00,000/- a. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has mis-appreciated the facts and his sustaining of addition/ disallowance of Rs. 21,07,00,000/- under "Prior period adjustments" is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. PARADIP PORT TRUST, JAGATSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

37,830.00 65,95,21,930.64 contractor 4. Other 45,03,51,527.14 25,78,93,653.00 18,41,02,389.80 52,41,42,790.34 charges 5. Int. accrued 229,97,23,247.20 - - 229,97,23,247.20 on Govt. of India loan 6. Int. liability 15,48,11,418.00 21,30,459.00 - 15,69,41,877.00 on initial investment

AES ORISSA DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation of Rs.21,214/-) and the AO having failed to do so and the learned CIT(Appeals)dismissing the Ground in this regard, is against the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, unjustified, wrong, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, supplement, modify the grounds here

AES ORISSA DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation of Rs.21,214/-) and the AO having failed to do so and the learned CIT(Appeals)dismissing the Ground in this regard, is against the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, unjustified, wrong, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, supplement, modify the grounds here

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

4 of the CIT(A)’s order wherein, it is observed by the AO that as per comments in column number 17(a) of the tax Audit report a sum of Rs. 40,22,979/- has been debited to profit & loss account being expenditure of capital nature is not allowable item under section 37 of the Income

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

4 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17 the hands of the assessee. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of India Rice Mills Vs. CIT, (1996) 218 ITR 508 (All), wherein, it has been categorically held that “whether since all deposits came to be made before assessee-firm started

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

4 of Audited accounts and the effect of change at para 4.2 (ii) is a furnished. Further, circular was issued by the Holding company i.e. Coal India Limited to all its subsidiaries for implementation of uniform accounting vide letter dated 15.05.2000 as decided by a committee constituted for the specific purpose of valuation and "coal stock of each unit

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

37 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur context of grant of exemption u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, : 961, but the interpretations will hold good in the context of the provisions of Section lO(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 also. In the present case, the objects of the Trust very clearly show that

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

37 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur context of grant of exemption u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, : 961, but the interpretations will hold good in the context of the provisions of Section lO(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 also. In the present case, the objects of the Trust very clearly show that

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

37 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur context of grant of exemption u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, : 961, but the interpretations will hold good in the context of the provisions of Section lO(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 also. In the present case, the objects of the Trust very clearly show that

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

37 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur context of grant of exemption u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, : 961, but the interpretations will hold good in the context of the provisions of Section lO(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 also. In the present case, the objects of the Trust very clearly show that

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

37 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur context of grant of exemption u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, : 961, but the interpretations will hold good in the context of the provisions of Section lO(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 also. In the present case, the objects of the Trust very clearly show that

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

37 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur context of grant of exemption u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, : 961, but the interpretations will hold good in the context of the provisions of Section lO(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 also. In the present case, the objects of the Trust very clearly show that

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

37 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur context of grant of exemption u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, : 961, but the interpretations will hold good in the context of the provisions of Section lO(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 also. In the present case, the objects of the Trust very clearly show that

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

37 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur context of grant of exemption u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, : 961, but the interpretations will hold good in the context of the provisions of Section lO(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 also. In the present case, the objects of the Trust very clearly show that

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

37 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur context of grant of exemption u/s.80G of the Income tax Act, : 961, but the interpretations will hold good in the context of the provisions of Section lO(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 also. In the present case, the objects of the Trust very clearly show that