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Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act.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

2) in a particular manner, it is not open to give a different interpretation other than what was given by the various High Courts as stated above. It cannot be said that there is any debatable issue in the matter of ascertaining the cost of acquisition under section 50. Even during the time, when the Tribunal passed its order

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

2) in a particular manner, it is not open to give a different interpretation other than what was given by the various High Courts as stated above. It cannot be said that there is any debatable issue in the matter of ascertaining the cost of acquisition under section 50. Even during the time, when the Tribunal passed its order

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

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

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. MAZDA CONCRETE PRODUCTS (P) LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.118/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Acit,Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Mazda Concrete Bhubaneswar Products (P) Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Grand, Rajbhawan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabcm 9883 H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Citdr निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Murty, Fca Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar Dated 12.02.2014. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,50,24,517/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Closing Stock. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 17,34,99120/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of-The Act. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law-As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.57,75,425/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Interest Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 15,59,634/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Rent Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

depreciation. The ld. CIT(A) was satisfied with the explanation on closing stock with supporting evidence and also both return of income filed u/s.139(1) and 139(5) of the Act. We found the CIT(A) observed that the assessee had not disclosed the value of raw materials and stores and spares in the Closing Stock in the original Return

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

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

2. In Ground No.1 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer disallowing Rs.11,28,518/-, Rs.14,65,333/- and Rs.14,08,153/- alleging violation of section 40A(3) of the Act for payments made to truck owners within limits of Rs.20,000/-. Asse ssment Year

B.C. BHUYAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2014-15 B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle - Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, 1(1), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcb 3304 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /07/2023

2) [2000] 244 ITR 238 was brought to our notice, in which question arose as to whether individual bottles can be regarded as plant for the purpose of the first proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and this Court held that each bottle can be regarded as a plant and the assessee is entitled to claim

SIBA NARAYAN ROUT,BHADRAK vs. ACIT, BALASORE

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation and Assessed total income at Rs.1,80,48,740/- and passed order under section 143(3) of the Act on 26.10.2010. 11. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed order under section 143(3) r.w.s 154 of the Act on 23.12.2010. 12. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). 13. In the first

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of executing civil contracts works and hiring of machinery and filed his return of income on 30.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs.28,90,580/-. Upon issuance of statutory notices, the assessee produced audit report u/s.44AB in Form No.3CB and 3CD along with the audited balance sheet

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

40A(3) & 40(a)(ia) of the IT. Act while completing the assessment. (g) Neither did the AO call for proof of various additions to assets acquired during the year, nor examined whether they were put to use before allowing the claim of depreciation on such assets. (h)The AO had also not examined whether there were any fresh cash

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

2. For that despite books of accounts, bills and supporting documents were produced before the Ld.CIT during the course of proceeding us.263 of the Act, without verifying the same he simply directed the AO to examine the same and reframe the assessment order, which is absolutely impermissible under law. Thus the order of u/s263 is liable to be quashed

SUDERSHAN BHUYAN,BALASORE vs. JCIT, BALASORE RANGE, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2009-2010 Assessment Year: 2009-2010

2 Sri Sudarshan Bhuyan, Ranipatna, Balasore. 4. I find that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.1,70,780/- on the ground that such amount was paid for acquisition of assets and not claimed as expenditure in the profit and loss account. Therefore, the assessee can have no grievance against the order of the CIT(A). Hence, this

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

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs. M/S Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, In Appeal No.0403/2012-13, Dated 23.05.2013, Passed U/S.147/143(3)/250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether The Learned First Appellate Authority Was Justified In Relying On Writ Cases Ignoring The Fact That Specific Findings In Writ-Petitions Can Not Be Straightaway Applied To Other Cases. 2. Whether The Learned Appellate Authority Was Justified To Hold That There Is Change In Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Regarding Admissibility / Inadmissibility Of Expenditure While Proceeding U/S.147 Of The 1.T. Act,1961 As Compared To His Findings In The Original Assessment Order. 3. Whether The Ld. First Appellate Authority Was Justified To Delete The Disallowance Of Rs.696.10 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer Towards 'Prior Period Expenses', Totally Ignoring The Findings Of The Assessing Officer. 4. Whether The Learned First Appellate Authority Was Justified To Delete The Disallowance Of Rs.631.34 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer Towards `Unpaid Statutory Liability' Under Section 43B Of The I.T. Act,1961, Totally Ignoring The Findings Of The Assessing Officer.

2 Development Expenditure 49.32 3 Capital expenditure on assets not belonging to 1.01 the assessee-company 4 Declamation of land 858.94 5 Expenditure claimed under community 2346.06 development 6 Apex office expenses 4944.50 7 Contribution to rehabilitation fund 5018.03 8 Disallowance of additional depreciation on 461.66 plant & machinery 9 Claim of interest 852.37 &590.00 10 Donation & Subscription 5.25 11 Expenditure

ACIT, BALASORE vs. M/S. SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL, MAYURBHANJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 40A(3) of the Act and addition of closing stock Rs.23,04,308/- and assessed total income at Rs.1,51,68,080/- and passed the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 13.03.2014. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the ld. AR of the assessee

SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,MAYURBHANJ vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 40A(3) of the Act and addition of closing stock Rs.23,04,308/- and assessed total income at Rs.1,51,68,080/- and passed the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 13.03.2014. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the ld. AR of the assessee

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

depreciation claimed by the assessee, whereas ld. CIT(A) gave categorical finding that the assessee has submitted the information in the course of assessment proceedings and supported with judicial decisions. Ld. CIT(A) dealt on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator India Ltd (supra) and in the case of Xerox Modicorp Ltd (supra