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

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

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

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

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

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

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

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

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

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

29,697, denying exemption and without treating the appellant as existing solely for the purpose of education and the Ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar confirming the same is bad in law. 5. That, the action of the Dy Commissioner and the ld. CIT(A) 1, Bhubaneswar in having denied exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) is against the settled law decided

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBNAESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.343/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Industrial Development Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Limited (Idcol), Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Order Of Assessment As Well As Appeal Is Against Law, Weight Of Evidences & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Most Arbitrarily Disallowed Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, U/S 14A Against The Exempted Income Of Rs.5,50,000/-, Being Dividend Received From Associate Companies In Routine Manner, Without Properly Recording The Dissatisfaction Of The Assessing Officer 3. The Interest On Income Tax Refund Of Rs.8,04,924/-, Which Is Adjusted Against Demand, Was Not Properly Intimated For Which The Same Is Not Recognized As Income. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer Added Rs.6,66,721/-, As Interest On Fixed Deposit Based On The Comment Of The Auditor, Which Is Recognized In Subsequent Assessment Year. 5. The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Adding, Amount Disallowed U/S 14A, Of Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, Rs.8,04,924/-, On Account Of Income

29,66,368/- which is in excess of exempt income earned for the year. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance computed u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of I.T.Rules

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

TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

10 | 27 ITA No.1 97/CTK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 12- 13 assessee’s claim or explanation. Ld A.R. further pointed out that in this judgment, Hon’ble High Court has clearly laid down the proposition that the AO can proceed to make disallowance u/s.14A r.w Rule 8D only when the AO rejects the claim of the assessee that

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

29 (A) in a case where the tax was deductible and was so deducted during the last month of the previous year, on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139; or (B) in any other case, on or before the last day of the previous year: Provided that where in respect of any such

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

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

section 40A(10) of the Act. 25. Ld D.R. though relied on the orders of lower authorities but could not cited any contrary decisions before us. ITA No. 264/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 26. After considering the rival submissions and perusing materials available on record, we find that the issue at hand is squarely covered

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

29,608/-. We further find that in para 7 of the impugned order Ld. Pr. CIT goes a step further stating that Ld. AO erred in estimating profit @8% of the unexplained deposit, rather Ld. AO should have invoked section 69 of the Act and taxed the total unexplained deposit. These finding of Ld. Pr. CIT make it ample clear