ADHIKAR,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

section 11 P a g e 3 | 7 ITA No. 255/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 13 In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the question No.1 in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Respectfully following the above quoted decision

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK vs. PURVI BHARAT COAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CUTTACK

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

depreciation of Rs.46,58,498/- on the plant and machinery installed at the coke oven plant of the assessee company in contravention of section

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant. The Hon’ble Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing A.O. to allow exemption u/s.11 and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide the above oder. For the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2009-10, under consideration, the A.O. denied the exemption claimed u/s.ll in the year under consideration

JAMUNA REALTY PVT. LTD. ,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the direction to the AO herein given above

Depreciation as per I.T.Act claimed By the assessee company - Rs. Nil Total income from business and profession: Rs.47,58,485/-.” 3. In response to show cause issued by Ld. Pr. CIT, the gist of the assessee is as under: i) The issue raised now has been considered during limited scrutiny. P a g e 5 | 23 Assessment Year

AMBIKA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BARIPADA vs. DCIT, BALASORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.191/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011 - 2012) Ambika Construction Company, Vs. Dcit, Balasore Circle, C/O Mangal Kumar Bhaumik, Balasore Ward No.11, Station Bazar, Baripada-757001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaffa 2848 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 27.02.2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, We Find That Initially The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Disposed Off By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29.05.2017. Thereafter The Assessee Carried The Matter To The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court & The Hon’Ble High Court Quashed The Order Of The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 24.04.2019 & Remitted The Matter Back For Consideration Of The Case Of The Assessee In The Light Of The Decision As Has Been Held By The Hon’Ble High Court In Income Tax (Appeal) No.36 Of 2015, Vide Order Dated 20.08.2018 In The Case Of 2 Mohd. Asif Habibi Vs. Pr. Cit & Others. Thereafter As Per The Direction

58,08,055.00 Rs. 74,33,290.00 Less Depreciation: Rs. 45,99,281.00 Rs. 28,34,009.00 Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and followed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases, referred to above, this appeal is liable to be allowed to the extent of allowing the depreciation

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

58 of the assessment order and the assessee has relied on the judicial decisions that the method of valuation necessitated in the current financial year and the method of valuation of closing stock, whereas the Assessing Officer has dealt on the provisions of section 145(2) of the Act and observed that the change in the method of valuation

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

58.,172/- Profit before depreciation estimated @ 12 % of gross receipts Rs.46,26,980/-(A) B. Gross receipts from machinery hire charges Rs. 38,22,927/- Profit before depreciation estimated @ 25% Of gross receipts Rs. 9,55,732/-(B) C, Profit before depreciation (A+-B) Rs. 55.82,712/- Less; Depreciation allowable Rs. 34,35,249/- D. Income from business

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

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

58,281=98 iv Depreciation 49,31,893=91 V Other expenses 15,06,960=90 Total 1,61,74,195.41 As per income and expenditure account total receipts for the year was Rs. 1,82,20,688/-. All the receipts are revenue receipts and hence taxable. After accounting for total expenses of Rs. 1,61,74,195/- (including depreciation

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DICT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

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

depreciation as claimed. 9. The next issue submitted by ld AR was that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee and in the course of survey, a diary was found and marked as BCBCPL-1. It was the submission that as per the said impounded material, it was found that the assessee has withdrawn large sums from

RASMITA PANDA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiarasmita Panda, I.T.O., D/O- R C Panda, Kanehipur, Crri, Ward- 1(1), Vs. Cuttack-753006 (Odisha) Cuttack. Pan No. Dbupp 9233 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

58,980.00 35% 147 Addition-Depreciation Rs. 168,978.00 & Gross commission income amounting Rs. 30,00,000.00 3 2021-22 32,81,150.00 17,06,200.00 52% 143(1) Returned Figure accepted 2 Rasmita Panda Vs ITO That it is humbly submitted that the gross receipts for A.Y. 2020-21 increased compared to A.Y. 2019-20. Despite higher receipts

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

58 (Ca!.), it was held that section 195(2) envisages application for determining appropriate proportion of the sum which would be chargeable to tax; but does not envisage a case where the assessee claims that no profits of the sum to be remitted is liable to tax at all. 3.2.2 Under similar circumstances

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 on laboratory equipments of Rs. :- 41 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 2,58,180/-, furniture of Rs. 23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee