M/S. EXIM INDIA OIL COMPANY LTD,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

44,508.00 under section 43B of the Act by confirming the said figure arising out of an a of rectification under section 154 of the Act, therefore the additional is not sustainable. D. That both the authorities by following the rectification order under section 154 of the Act have also added and confirmed Rs.51,36,150.00 on account of alleged

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): ................ Relevant extract reproduced A bare reading of the foregoing provision suggests that reason to believe and escapement of income are the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section

GURU MAHARAJ CONSTRUCTION,CUTTACK vs. PR CIT(CENTRAL) VISAKHAPATNAM, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.345/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Guru Maharaj Construction, Vs Pr.Cit(Central) Visakhapatnam, Prativa Niwas, Arunodaya Bhubaneswar Market, Cuttack-753012 Pan No. :Aazpj 2025 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.03.2014, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062072084(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. For That The Order Of The Forum Below Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Unjust Both Is Fact & Law, Hence Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That Pr. Cit(Central) Erred In Exercising Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The It Act By Substituting His Subjective Opinion In Place Of The Opinion Formed By The Assessing Office. Since No Jurisdiction U] S 263 Can Be Exercised On Change Of Opinion The Present Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Hence Liable To Be Quashed & Set Aside. 3. For That Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S. 263 Of The It Act By Going Against The Law Settled By The Jurisdiction High Court & Without Making A Minimal Enquiry. Therefore The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act Is Illegal & Deserves To Be Quashed & Set Aside.

44,997/- which constitutes 0.20% of total revenue from its 3 business operation. However, the assessee has claimed depreciation @30% on plant and machinery where as its involvement in the business of relevant hiring busses and lorries was significantly low during the relevant period. Therefore, depreciation allowable on net assets is @15% as on 31/03/2018 which comes to Rs.1

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

depreciation claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the revenue is dismissed. 34. Ground No:3 & 4 – Disallowance of Peripheral Development Expenses of Rs.9,44,35,647/- 3.1 The ld CIT(A) was not justified to delete the disallowance of Rs.9,44,35,647/- made by the AO towards “peripheral Development expenditure” totally ignoring the findings

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

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

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

depreciation claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the revenue is dismissed. 34. Ground No:3 & 4 – Disallowance of Peripheral Development Expenses of Rs.9,44,35,647/- 3.1 The ld CIT(A) was not justified to delete the disallowance of Rs.9,44,35,647/- made by the AO towards “peripheral Development expenditure” totally ignoring the findings

BIKASH DEB,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.357 & 388/Ctk/2019 /2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010 10 & 2010-11 Bikash Dev Bikash Dev, Flat No.101, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Haraprity Haraprity Apar Apartment, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vivekananda Vivekananda Marg, Marg, Old Old Town, Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Ahepd 0737 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

44. Mrs. suri relied upon judgment of the supreme court in Chhugamal Rajpal's case (79 ITR 603) and in particular paragraph 9 thereof. This judgment does not support the petitioner's case. It is clearly distinguishable. As noted in the earlier part of paragraph 9, the Supreme Court held that the reasons recorded by the ITO for initiating proceedings