M/S. BHAGABATI BUIL & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,CUTTACK vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. M/S. Bhagabati Bhagabati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit, Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps:Madhupatna, Cuttack Ps:Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /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 Pr. Cit, Cit, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Dated 27.11.2019 27.11.2019 In Appeal No.Itba/Ast/S/144/2019 Itba/Ast/S/144/2019-20/1021143134(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year2017- 18. 2. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, 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.

section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was applicable to the assessee in view of the fact that its income for the assessment year in question, i.e., 2009-10, was above ₹ 40 lakhs and therefore, the bar to the entitlement for depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. IB VALLEY TRANSPORT, JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

section 32 of the Act, depreciation on motor vehicles used for own business is allowable @ 15% depreciation. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the excess depreciation claimed by the assessee at Rs.43,74,093/-. 9. On the other hand, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee supported the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have heard

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

40,710/- derived from extraction (mining) of coal and sale thereof. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. Later on other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen by the AO that he has claimed Rs.274.91 crores as depreciation charges

M/S. FAYAJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. M/S. Fayaj Fayaj Infratech Infratech Pvt Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Dcit, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Ltd., C-56, 56, Baramunda Baramunda Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Housing Housing Board Board Colony, Colony, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcf 6797 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar K.K.Bal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11 /01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01 /01/2023 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 11.12.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. 0509/17-18 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

depreciation in respect of heavy earth moving machinery used by the assessee in its business on construction of roads, the third issue being the disallowance at 100% as against 30% of the amount disallowed by applying the provisions of section 40

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

Section 40(a)(ia) does not permit disallowance of capital expenditure for the reason of non-deduction of taxes. The disallowance of both the said sums was untenable u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act.” 8. Ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the mining lease cannot be transferred between

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

Section 40(a)(ia) does not permit disallowance of capital expenditure for the reason of non-deduction of taxes. The disallowance of both the said sums was untenable u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act.” 8. Ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the mining lease cannot be transferred between

M/S. JAYA MANGALA CONSTRUCTION,KORAPUT vs. ITO, WARD-1, JEYPORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2005-06

depreciation expenses to the tune of Rs.3,33,667.00, particular when, the claim of the Assessee is true and correct and needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. 6. For that, the learned Forums below should not have added back Rs.22,919.00, the closing bank balance as unexplained money. The impugned addition thus is liable to be deleted

M/S. S.C.PADHEE,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 40(b) of the Act only employ the term ‘authorise’ and not ‘quantify’ in respect of the remunerations payable to partners. He held that the remunerations payable to the partners was authorized by the partnership deed and, therefore, the Assessing Officer 4 M/s.S.C.Padhee, Balibandha, Sambalpur was not justified in disallowing the partner’s remuneration paid by the partner

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable. Ld A.R. explained that the total interest liability of Rs.382.21 lakhs consists of interest payable to CIL of loans from IBRD and JBIC of Rs.258.71 lakhs and deferred payment to M/s. Liebherr France S.S. France of Rs.13.64 lakhs and other interest on cess collected from customers of Rs.109.86 lakhs

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;

section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the second proviso is applicable for the assessment year 2013-14 and subsequent assessment years. We, therefore

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

40,000/- for expenditure made in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act were liable to be disallowed. Notice under section 154 dated 5-7-2018 was duly received by the Ld. AR of the assessee who appeared on 16-7-2018 but did not provide any reply and requested for adjournment which was granted. The hearing was adjourned

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

40,000/- for expenditure made in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act were liable to be disallowed. Notice under section 154 dated 5-7-2018 was duly received by the Ld. AR of the assessee who appeared on 16-7-2018 but did not provide any reply and requested for adjournment which was granted. The hearing was adjourned

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

40,000/- for expenditure made in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act were liable to be disallowed. Notice under section 154 dated 5-7-2018 was duly received by the Ld. AR of the assessee who appeared on 16-7-2018 but did not provide any reply and requested for adjournment which was granted. The hearing was adjourned

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

depreciation of Rs.45,20,05,128/- instead of 6 & ITA No.02/CTK/2014 giving the direction to the learned AO vide his order dated 28.10.2013. 3. The assessee has raised 11 grounds in the appeal, out of which ground Nos.6,7,8,9,10 & 11 have not been pressed by ld. AR of the assessee at the time of hearing and made

KUSA APAT,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation and also made payment of more than Rs.50000/- to different vehicle owners without deducting tax u/s.194C of the Act and violation of the provisions u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly the ld. AO having reason to believe that there is escapement of income and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued notices u/s.143

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

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

Section 40(a)(ia)n of the Act. Under these circumstances, this issue is allowed partly for statistical purposes. 87. The next issue is in regard to interest on demand of interest tax taken in assessment year 2011-12.. P a g e 32 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 88. This issue is consequential in nature and does

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

Section 40(a)(ia)n of the Act. Under these circumstances, this issue is allowed partly for statistical purposes. 87. The next issue is in regard to interest on demand of interest tax taken in assessment year 2011-12.. P a g e 32 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 88. This issue is consequential in nature and does

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

Section 40(a)(ia)n of the Act. Under these circumstances, this issue is allowed partly for statistical purposes. 87. The next issue is in regard to interest on demand of interest tax taken in assessment year 2011-12.. P a g e 32 | 35 Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., 88. This issue is consequential in nature and does