KALINGA INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY,PATIA BHUNANESWAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.177/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs Cit (Exemption), Hyderabad Technology, Patia, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aaatk 3103 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/07/2024

46,22,497/-, which is same as adopted by the ld. CIT(E) by treating the development fees of Rs.111 crores 4 as revenue income, which after the assessee has reduced the application in respect of the revenue expenditure without considering the depreciation and the total expenditure treated as application of income to arrive at a loss of Rs.1

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

section 68 of the Act. Grounds No. 1 to 3 of the assessee's appeal are accordingly dismissed". b) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. (50 taxmann.com 110) wherein it was held that Certificate of incorporation, PANs etc. are not sufficient for the purpose of identification of shareholders when there

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) ..

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. c) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

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) ..

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. c) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

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) ..

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. c) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

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) ..

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. c) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

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) ..

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. c) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

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) ..

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. c) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. vi.) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. vi.) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. vi.) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. vi.) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. vi.) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

SUJATA PANDA,BERHAMPUR vs. ACIT, CENTARAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.415 To 421/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16 Sujata Panda Sujata Panda, The X Ray Vs. Acit, Acit, Central Central Circle Circle-1, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Clinic, State Bank Of India, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Berhampur- -760001 Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Agppp 7126H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca/C.Parida, /C.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit , Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/11 11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/11 11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Ese Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A) Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar Dated 21.8.2019 21.8.2019 In Appeal No.0760/2016 0760/2016-17, Dated 17.9.2019, Nos. 0765/2016 0765/2016-17, 0769/2016- 17,0775/2016 17,0775/2016-17, 0782/2016-17, Dated 18.9.2019 No. Dated 18.9.2019 No. 0780/2016-17 & 0788/2016-17 17 For The Assessment Years 2009 2009-10 To 2015-16, Respectively. Respectively. 2. S/Shri Shri D.Parida/C. D.Parida/C.Parida, Ld Ars Appeared Appeared For For The The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

46 ITR 735) is pertinent in which their lordships held that where an order of assessment had been passed within the period of limitation then the date on which order of assessment and demand notice were served, was not relevant. vi.) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT (151 ITR 216) held that

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

46,755.848 Cubic Meter. The DDM, Joda also reported that Shri B.C.Deb has illegally raised iron and manganese ores from outside the leased area and safety zone to an extent of 5803094 MT of iron ore and 355228 MT of manganese ore valued at Rs.158,71,60,491.00 and Rs.67,48,99,832.00 respectively. Despite the fact that no lease

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

46,755.848 Cubic Meter. The DDM, Joda also reported that Shri B.C.Deb has illegally raised iron and manganese ores from outside the leased area and safety zone to an extent of 5803094 MT of iron ore and 355228 MT of manganese ore valued at Rs.158,71,60,491.00 and Rs.67,48,99,832.00 respectively. Despite the fact that no lease

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 National National Aluminium Aluminium Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(2), Company Limited., Nalco Company Limited., Nalco Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhawan, Bhawan, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacn 7449 M (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca & Shri P. Venugopal Rao, Ca Venugopal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

depreciation at Rs. 4,68,68,569/- on 100% block of asset acquired of Rs. 12,81,03,727/-. Please explain how the same is admissible under the provisions of the Act. P a g e 3 | 13 Assessment Year : 2016-17 2. You have claimed deduction u/s 32AC of the Act. In this regard please furnish following details

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

Depreciation IN01.04: Large investment in property (Form 26QB) as compared to total income With respect to your income for the year under consideration, kindly submit the below specified details: 1. Copy of Computation of income for A.Y.2018-19 and Final Accounts 2. Detailed note on during F.Y.2017-18. 3. Detailed address of Br offices, site offices etc. 4. Details of various , loan