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

30) Further, the assessee-Board made an application under cl. (46) of s. 10 for exemption of specified income of the assessee and CBDT vide its notification dt. 29th March, 2016 exempted the income of assessee-Board arising from : (a) fees, fines and penalties; (b) receipts from printed educational material; (c) receipts from scrap or waste paper; (d) receipts from

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

30% of the disallowance (2.8). That based on facts of the case and provisions of law, AO erred in making disallowance of Rs.41,940/- being interest on service tax without appreciating the fact that interest on service tax being compensatory in nature is allowable u/s.37 of the 1.T Act 1961. (2.9). That based on facts of the case

M/S. FAYAJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. M/S. Fayaj Fayaj Infratech Infratech Pvt Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Dcit, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Ltd., C-56, 56, Baramunda Baramunda Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Housing Housing Board Board Colony, Colony, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcf 6797 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar K.K.Bal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11 /01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01 /01/2023 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 Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.12.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. 0509/17-18 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

30% of the amount disallowed by applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the fourth being the issue against the non-granting of benefit of credit of TDS. 4. At the time of hearing, ld AR submitted that he did not wish to press Ground No.6 of the appeal, which was in relation

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/-

disallowance made u/s 14A is not includible in the book profit as computed u/s 115JB for charging MAT. 30. Per contra ld.CIT D/R relied upon the orders of lower authorities and submits that AO has not made any error and the adjustment was made in terms of clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) which provides as under

M/S. CHANDAN TRANS-CONS PVT. LTD,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% disallowance is liable to be made only in respect of Rs.2,70,239/-. In respect of ITA No.15/CTK/2024 for A.Y. 2009- 10

M/S. CHANDAN TRANS-CONS PVT. LTD,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% disallowance is liable to be made only in respect of Rs.2,70,239/-. In respect of ITA No.15/CTK/2024 for A.Y. 2009- 10

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA ODISHA vs. CHANDAN TRANSCONS PVT LTD, ROURKELA ODISHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% disallowance is liable to be made only in respect of Rs.2,70,239/-. In respect of ITA No.15/CTK/2024 for A.Y. 2009- 10

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA, ODISHA vs. CHANDAN TRANSCONS PRIVATE LIMITED, ROURKELA, ODISHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% disallowance is liable to be made only in respect of Rs.2,70,239/-. In respect of ITA No.15/CTK/2024 for A.Y. 2009- 10

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.

30,68,95,380/- being against the principles of natural justice, being without/lack/in excess of jurisdiction, contrary to facts, unjustified, arbitrary, excessive, erroneous, bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable ought to have been quashed 2 3. Re-opening and reassessment a. That the learned CIT (Appeals) upholding the Order dated

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

30\nof the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.\nThe Mining tribunal passed an order dt. 16.01.2012 in Revision order\nno. 25/2012 in the case of Smt. Indrani Patnaik (Revisionist) v/s\nGovernment of Odisha (Respondent). In the order the Mining Tribunal\ndismissed the findings of the State Government as baseless by\nobserving that there was no evidence

LAXMINARAYAN TRANSPORT,JAJPUR ROAD, JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1) CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16

section 80G but claiming under the head “business expenses”. It is well known fact that a prudent business man has to incur such miscellaneous expenses in the course of his business for the purpose of furtherance of his business activities. Considering the present case as also the necessity, which has been explained by the assessee, the disallowance made

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

30] This line of thinking is also supported by the interpretative process of enquiry. One has to determine whether each item of heterogeneous material comes under the definition of Plant mentioned in section 32 (1) or not. Then, if it is a plant one has to go to proviso to see whether any item of such Plant utilized

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

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

30\nof the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.\nThe Mining tribunal passed an order dt. 16.01.2012 in Revision order\nno. 25/2012 in the case of Smt. Indrani Patnaik (Revisionist) v/s\nGovernment of Odisha (Respondent). In the order the Mining Tribunal\ndismissed the findings of the State Government as baseless by\nobserving that there was no evidence

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

30\nof the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.\nThe Mining tribunal passed an order dt. 16.01.2012 in Revision order\nno. 25/2012 in the case of Smt. Indrani Patnaik (Revisionist) v/s\nGovernment of Odisha (Respondent). In the order the Mining Tribunal\ndismissed the findings of the State Government as baseless by\nobserving that there was no evidence

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

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

30\nof the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.\nThe Mining tribunal passed an order dt. 16.01.2012 in Revision order\nno. 25/2012 in the case of Smt. Indrani Patnaik (Revisionist) v/s\nGovernment of Odisha (Respondent). In the order the Mining Tribunal\ndismissed the findings of the State Government as baseless by\nobserving that there was no evidence

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

10,58,980.00 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

SAHOO DIOSTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales and net profit declared for the impugned year, both the learned A.O. as well as the learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error of law in disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

10 ITA Nos.555 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 4. For that, while accepting purchases, sales and net profit declared for the impugned year, both the learned A.O. as well as the learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error of law in disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section