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

94, 889/-whereas the company had to press 24 crore worth of investment and loans and advances, the expenditure on staff and salaries was minimal, from the bank statement, the entries P a g e 10 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17 are only circulating in nature and the company had no investors/traders/debtors. 7. Learned Assessing Officer therefore doubted the transaction

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

section 143(3), assessment proceedings would be conducted manually. Yours faithfully. THAMBURAN THOZHAPILLAI AYYAMPERUMAl DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), BBSR 4. In Annexure to page 210, ld AR drew our attention to Question No.7, 9 & 10 as under: 1. From schedule DPM it is found that you have claimed additional depreciation on 15% block at Rs. 25,18,79,430/-. However

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

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

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

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

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

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

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBAN\ESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATON LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

7 of Finance Department Resolution No.52214/E dtd.12.11.2002, which specified that the guarantee commission should be on the maximum amount of guarantee sanctioned irrespective of the amount outstanding as on 1st day of April of the each year till the liquidation of the loan. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, this issue is squarely covered by the decision

M/S. SWAPNA MOTORS PRIVATE LTD.,CUTTACK vs. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Friends Colony, Cuttack Friends Colony, Cuttack Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Arunodoya Nagar, Cuttack Nagar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aafcs 1450 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

section 263(1) of the Act. On perusal of records, he noticed that the assessee company had disclosed returned income of Rs.8,78,800/- for the assessment year 2010-2011 after making adjustment of carry forward business loss & unabsorbed depreciation as per return of the assessment year 2009-10 amounting to Rs.34,94,402/-. From the assessment record

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.

94) has held in para- 4.3 as under: "4.3 On a fair reading of sub-section (2) of section 263 it can be seen that as mandated by sub-section (2) of section 263, no order under section 263 of the Act shall be "made" after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which

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.

94) has held in para- 4.3 as under: "4.3 On a fair reading of sub-section (2) of section 263 it can be seen that as mandated by sub-section (2) of section 263, no order under section 263 of the Act shall be "made" after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which

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.

94) has held in para- 4.3 as under: "4.3 On a fair reading of sub-section (2) of section 263 it can be seen that as mandated by sub-section (2) of section 263, no order under section 263 of the Act shall be "made" after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which

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.

94) has held in para- 4.3 as under: "4.3 On a fair reading of sub-section (2) of section 263 it can be seen that as mandated by sub-section (2) of section 263, no order under section 263 of the Act shall be "made" after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which