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Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act.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

depreciable asset. This was permitted on the mistaken application of law. Later on by invoking the provisions of section 154 ITO withdrew the permission given to the assessee to exercise its open to offer fair market value as on 1-1-1954. Since there is an error apparent on the face of the record in passing the original assessment 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

depreciable asset. This was permitted on the mistaken application of law. Later on by invoking the provisions of section 154 ITO withdrew the permission given to the assessee to exercise its open to offer fair market value as on 1-1-1954. Since there is an error apparent on the face of the record in passing the original assessment order

ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

46A of the IT Rules.” 3. Brief facts of the case as emerged from the order of the CIT(A) are that the assessee trust i.e. M/s. Regional College of Management was registered under the Indian Trust Act vide a trust deed dtd.12.05.2004. Under the trust, the name of the educational institution was "Regional College of Management" which runs from

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRB CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

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

depreciable assets, the Assessing Officer should have excluded Rs.51,876/- which pertained to ITA No. 566/CT K/ 2013 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 assessee’s gain on sale of assets, which was offered for taxation under the head “other income”. He observed that the Assessing Officer apparently missed to see that a sum of Rs.51,876/- was really

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

section 145 (3) and order of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd(supra), he cannot proceed further without rejecting Books of Account to make any addition to the profit derived, by taking a provisional costing figure, submitted by the appellant herself before the IBM. 20. We note that the assessee being raising the Iron Ore from

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

section 145 (3) and order of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd(supra), he cannot proceed further without rejecting Books of Account to make any addition to the profit derived, by taking a provisional costing figure, submitted by the appellant herself before the IBM. 20. We note that the assessee being raising the Iron Ore from

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

FAHMIDA INTERNATIONAL (P) LIMITED,BHUBANWEAWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No. A No.69/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2008-2009 It(Ss)A No. A No.50/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2009-2010

depreciation. 19. Ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made an assessment of Rs.15,39,73,507/-, which had been reduced by the ld CIT(A) to Rs.1,54,98,904/-. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) ought not to have considered the audit report of the assessee to reduce the income. 20. In reply

FAHMIDA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No. A No.69/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2008-2009 It(Ss)A No. A No.50/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2009-2010

depreciation. 19. Ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made an assessment of Rs.15,39,73,507/-, which had been reduced by the ld CIT(A) to Rs.1,54,98,904/-. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) ought not to have considered the audit report of the assessee to reduce the income. 20. In reply

MR. NARENDRA KUMA RBAL,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

depreciation being statutory allowance should have been allowed. D. For that, the passing of the order by the forums below on irregular and irrelevant manner caused unnecessary enhancement of the total income and the addition of Rs.1,16,898/- made for non-disclose of closing balance of bank account should be deleted as the order of assessment passed by rejecting