STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10(46) of the Income tax Act has been made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), of Rs. 53,48,75,077/-. 3.2 This issue was not raised by the appellant before the Assessing Officer. However, before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) the appellant has submitted that: “That, the appellant

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the claim of the appellant regarding Long Term Capital Gains by ignoring the evidences and submissions made by the appellant. 2 3. For that under the facts and in the circumstance of the case the amount of Rs.65,55,972/- should not have been treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 and should have been accepted as income from Long

SUKANTI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,SONEPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

12-June-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)']-NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 09.12.2024, I.T.A. No.: 51/CTK/2025 Assessment

SANDEEP KUMAR AGARWAL,JAGATPUR vs. ACIT,NFAC, DELHI, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Sandeep Kumar Kumar Agarwal, Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack C/O. Agarwal Spices & C/O. Agarwal Spices & Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Jagatpur. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aarpa 8064 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed the entire sale consideration to make the addition of Rs.81,41,052/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had further made an addition of commission alleged to have been paid to intermediaries to an extent of Rs.4,07,053/- though no evidence of such expenditure was found nor it was claimed by the assessee

SOFTWARE POINT,BHABA NAGAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

12 and sections 10(23C)(iv), 10(23C)(v), 10(23C)(vi) & 10(23C)(via) of the Act. In column No.4, the computed and the difference of Rs.9697/- has been shown in column 9(c) as exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. It was the submission that the return filed by the assessee came to be processed

HANUMAN KHEDARIA HUF,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD 2, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela. C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Market, Market, Kachery Road, Rourkela. Kachery Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca .R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/12 12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed the assessee’s claim of the loss on account of long term capital loss in respect of the scrips of Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd. It was the submission that the profit generated in respect of the long term capital gain from the trading of shares of Maa Tarini Industries Ltd., was accepted. It was the submission that

MGM GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.370/Ctk/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Mgm Green Energy Limited, Vs Jcit, Range Rourkela, Rourkela 5-A, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aahcm 8472 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh A.K.Sabat & Sh B.K.Mahapatra, Cas राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1. Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.06.2019, In I.T.Appeal No.0388/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Assessee Has Taken As Many As Six Grounds Of Appeal, Relating To Various Additions/Disallowances Made To The Income Declared By The Assessee & Also Against The Adjustments Made In The Book Profit U/S.115Jb Of The Act. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- I) The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Which Is Arbitrary, Erroneous & Bad, Both In The Eyes Of Law. Ii) Disallowance Of Interest Expenses U/S.36(Iii) Of The Act At Rs.1,65,18,400/-; Iii) Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.14A Of The Act/Rule 8D Of It Rules At Rs.2,44,82,488/-; Iv) Addition Of Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.14A At Rs.2,44,82,488/- In The Book Profit As Computed U/S 115Jb; V) Addition/Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.115Jb Of The Act Under The Book Profits; Vi) Disallowance Of Differential Depreciation Of Rs.1,16,63,697/-

10 (other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof) or [***] section 11 or section 12 apply; or] 31. He thus prayed that the adjustment so made liable to be uphold and he prayed accordingly. 32. We have heard the rival contentions. In the instant case, as we have already held that provisions of section 14A cannot be invoked

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

10 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Commissioner" or "Assistant Director" or "Deputy Director" or Income Tax Officer" under the Act to act as Assessing Officer (3.4). This interpretation also derives strength from the provisions contained in section 120(4)(b) of the Act which reads as under: "120. Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities. (4) Without prejudice

M G MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.402/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-2009) वष" M G Mohanty, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar 5A, Forest Park, Odisha Pan No. :Aaffm 2127 H (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर : Sh B.K.Mahapatra & Sh. A.K.Sabat, Cas राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.08.2024, Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-1/10098/2016-17 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067224134(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Appellate Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [In Short "Cit (Appeals)") Dated 01.08.2024 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 [In Short "I.T.Act/ "Act] In Dismissing The Appeal Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice, Contrary To Facts, Unjustified, Arbitrary, Erroneous, Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts & Legally Untenable.

Section 6 of the MMDR Act. 1957, Environment Impact Assessment notification dated 27.01.1994 (EIA Notification, 1994) issued by MoEF) under Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and circular dated 25.4.2005 of MoEF issued in continuation to Circular dated 28.10.2004 being on mis- appreciation/misconstruing of the facts is incorrect, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts

SWASTHA BIKASH SAMITI, SCB MEDICAL COLLEGE,CUTTACK vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed under section 40A(3) being protected by rule 6DD(b). [Annexure-A; Page-7-14] P a g e 10 | 16 ITA Nos.324 to 328/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 202003-04 to 2007-08 7. In the case of DCIT v. Vinod Arora 137 taxmann.com 450 (Amritsar - Trib.), the Hon'ble Bench, applying the tests as propounded in the case

SWASTHYA BIKASH SAMITI SCB MIDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL,CUTTACK vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed under section 40A(3) being protected by rule 6DD(b). [Annexure-A; Page-7-14] P a g e 10 | 16 ITA Nos.324 to 328/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 202003-04 to 2007-08 7. In the case of DCIT v. Vinod Arora 137 taxmann.com 450 (Amritsar - Trib.), the Hon'ble Bench, applying the tests as propounded in the case

SWASTHYA BIKASH SAMITI, SCB MEDICAL COLLEGE,CUTTACK vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed under section 40A(3) being protected by rule 6DD(b). [Annexure-A; Page-7-14] P a g e 10 | 16 ITA Nos.324 to 328/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 202003-04 to 2007-08 7. In the case of DCIT v. Vinod Arora 137 taxmann.com 450 (Amritsar - Trib.), the Hon'ble Bench, applying the tests as propounded in the case

SWASTHYA BIKASH SAMITI, SCB MEDICAL COLLEGE,CUTTACK vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed under section 40A(3) being protected by rule 6DD(b). [Annexure-A; Page-7-14] P a g e 10 | 16 ITA Nos.324 to 328/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 202003-04 to 2007-08 7. In the case of DCIT v. Vinod Arora 137 taxmann.com 450 (Amritsar - Trib.), the Hon'ble Bench, applying the tests as propounded in the case

SWASTHYA BIKASH SAMITI, SCB MEDICAL COLLEGE,CUTTACK vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed under section 40A(3) being protected by rule 6DD(b). [Annexure-A; Page-7-14] P a g e 10 | 16 ITA Nos.324 to 328/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 202003-04 to 2007-08 7. In the case of DCIT v. Vinod Arora 137 taxmann.com 450 (Amritsar - Trib.), the Hon'ble Bench, applying the tests as propounded in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PHULBANI vs. NARSINGH DASH AGRAWALA AND SONS, PHULBANI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

12 C.O.No.1/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 During the course of assessment the Assessee had submitted the detaits of closing stock as on 31.03.2013 as given below. SI, NO, Item Qty. Rate Amount 1. Petrol 9994 66.29 662502.26 2. HSD 10738 50.85 546027.30 In view of the above table the excess shortage valuing Rs. 10,07,414/- claimed on sale

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(vii)), it was held in para-19 to 20 as under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(vii). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(vii)), it was held in para-19 to 20 as under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(vii). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible

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

disallowance u/s.36(1)(vii)), it was held in para-19 to 20 as under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section 36(1)(vii). Unless amount of bad and doubtful debts is debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account and the deduction admissible