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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

C (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee by ओर : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue by ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख

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

disallowance made from 10% to 5%, Ground No.3 of the revenue stands dismissed. 18. In Ground Nos.4 & 5, the revenue has challenged the direction of the ld CIT(A) in adopting the total income at Rs.1,54,98,904/- before depreciation. 19. Ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made an assessment of Rs.15,39,73,507/-, which

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

disallowance made from 10% to 5%, Ground No.3 of the revenue stands dismissed. 18. In Ground Nos.4 & 5, the revenue has challenged the direction of the ld CIT(A) in adopting the total income at Rs.1,54,98,904/- before depreciation. 19. Ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made an assessment of Rs.15,39,73,507/-, which

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/-

c) xxxxxxx; or (d) xxxxxxx; or (e) xxxxxxx; or (f) the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which [ section 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

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

C). 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A): Replaced Grounds of appeal are as under: (2.1). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under section 143(3) is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction, on the grounds amongst

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

23)C of the Income Tax Act and also there is no infirmity in filing application u/s.12A by the assessee society. That P a g e 4 | 16 ITA Nos.324 to 328/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 202003-04 to 2007-08 on bare perusal of the audited accounts, it can be seen that for assessment year 2003-04, the surplus amount

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

23)C of the Income Tax Act and also there is no infirmity in filing application u/s.12A by the assessee society. That P a g e 4 | 16 ITA Nos.324 to 328/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 202003-04 to 2007-08 on bare perusal of the audited accounts, it can be seen that for assessment year 2003-04, the surplus amount

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

23)C of the Income Tax Act and also there is no infirmity in filing application u/s.12A by the assessee society. That P a g e 4 | 16 ITA Nos.324 to 328/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 202003-04 to 2007-08 on bare perusal of the audited accounts, it can be seen that for assessment year 2003-04, the surplus amount

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

23)C of the Income Tax Act and also there is no infirmity in filing application u/s.12A by the assessee society. That P a g e 4 | 16 ITA Nos.324 to 328/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 202003-04 to 2007-08 on bare perusal of the audited accounts, it can be seen that for assessment year 2003-04, the surplus amount

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

23)C of the Income Tax Act and also there is no infirmity in filing application u/s.12A by the assessee society. That P a g e 4 | 16 ITA Nos.324 to 328/CTK/2023 Assessment Years : 202003-04 to 2007-08 on bare perusal of the audited accounts, it can be seen that for assessment year 2003-04, the surplus amount

MGM MINERALS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

c. That without prejudice to the Grounds (a) & (b) above, the aforesaid Rs.! ,20,36,869/being the closing balance of the aforesaid Party Accounts the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer as income of the assessee and confirming the addition of the same Rs.l,20,36,869/- by the learned CIT(Appeals) is contrary to facts, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous

MGM MINERALS LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

c. That without prejudice to the Grounds (a) & (b) above, the aforesaid Rs.! ,20,36,869/being the closing balance of the aforesaid Party Accounts the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer as income of the assessee and confirming the addition of the same Rs.l,20,36,869/- by the learned CIT(Appeals) is contrary to facts, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MGM MINERALS LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

c. That without prejudice to the Grounds (a) & (b) above, the aforesaid Rs.! ,20,36,869/being the closing balance of the aforesaid Party Accounts the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer as income of the assessee and confirming the addition of the same Rs.l,20,36,869/- by the learned CIT(Appeals) is contrary to facts, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous

M/S. BISHANDAYAL JEWELLERS,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17

23 /9 9/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT, Hyderabad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance\nof deduction of expenditure since the whole activity was illegal.\n23. In the premises, the impugned notice issued by the Assessing\nOfficer under Section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and must be\nset aside.\n24. The following companion writ petitions, Writ Petition Nos.1015,\n1016, 328, 329, 955, 959, 1019 of 2015, 3, 5, 22, 23

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

10. That, the appellant has disclosed fully and truly all information, materials in connection with the assessment and no new facts have been found out or utilized by the AO to empower him to exercise jurisdiction u/s.147/148. No fresh tangible information has come to the notice of the assessing officer after completion of assessment u/s.143 (3). 11. That, the fact

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

10. That, the appellant has disclosed fully and truly all information, materials in connection with the assessment and no new facts have been found out or utilized by the AO to empower him to exercise jurisdiction u/s.147/148. No fresh tangible information has come to the notice of the assessing officer after completion of assessment u/s.143 (3). 11. That, the fact

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

c) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 801A can be availed only after the infrastructure facility has started (i.e got completion Certificate). However, the assessee being a contractor does not get any compensation after completion of project. In view of above, whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding the eligibility of assessee company for deduction