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

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

NIRMALA CHHOTRAY,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, ROURKELA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.254/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Nirmala Chhotray, Deogaon, Vs Ito, Ward-5, Rourkela Rourkela, Sundergarh 769004 Pan No. : Aarpc 6461 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K. Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/092025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

Section 10(38) of the Act. It was the submission that the AO disallowed the entire investments and the gain

ANUP AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.209/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Anup Agarwal Vs Ito, Ward-1,Rourkela Qr No Tt-9,Civil Township, Rourkela, Sundergarh- 769009 Pan No. : Afvpa 0968 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 10(38) of the Act. It was the submission that the AO disallowed the entire investments and the gain

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

38,55,184/- leaving a surplus of ₹13,47,532/-. The assessee is neither registered u/s 12A nor approved u/s 10(23C) of the Act, therefore, the assessee had filed the return of income as an AOP discharging the tax liability on the surplus of ₹ 13,47,532/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the notice

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

SHWETA AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.140/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Shweta Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela Odisha-769004 Pan No. :Auhpa 4567 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jaish Joshi, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai, Dated 17.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Only Issue In The Assessee’S Appeal Is Against The Actin Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of The Assessee U/S.10(38) Of The Act In Respect Of 70,000 Shares Of Kailash Auto Sold On 14.11.2015 For A Consideration Of Rs.15,82,745/- & A Claim Of Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act To An Extent Of Rs.14,42,732/-. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Issue Is Squarely Covered By The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Ridhi Bagaria, Passed In Ita No.76/Ctk/2023, Order Dated 18.05.2023. It Was Also Submitted That Very Same Issue Has Been Upheld By The Hon’Ble

disallowance of the claim of the assessee u/s.10(38) of the Act in respect of 70,000 shares of Kailash Auto sold on 14.11.2015 for a consideration of Rs.15,82,745/- and a claim of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act to an extent of Rs.14,42,732/-. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the issue is squarely

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

DISALLOWANCE OF Rs.66,103/- BEING INTEREST ON TDS: In view of above discussions including that of judicial precedents, it is requested kindly allow Rs.66,103/-being the interest on tax suffered by the deductor because such interest does not come under the definition of tax as defined u/s.2(43) and it is compensatory in nature and allowable

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

10,000 metric tons. Therefore, the production\nduring the financial year 2008-09, was in accessible of EC limit to the\ntune of 12,24,950 metric tons even as per lessee's data and of\n14,11,450 MT as per Mines Department's data. The Id. AO accordingly\nheld that there is also clear violence of provision

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT-(TDS), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Vs. Acit (Tds), Acit (Tds), Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 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 12.7.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0035/17-18 For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

38 (Del), wherein, it has been held that if the issue whether the provisions of section 244A(2) has not been adjudicated by the Pr. CIT/Appropriate authority, then the issue can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Ld CIT DR has filed written submission, as follows: “i.) This is an assessee's appeal against

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

10,000 metric tons. Therefore, the production\nduring the financial year 2008-09, was in accessible of EC limit to the\ntune of 12,24,950 metric tons even as per lessee's data and of\n14,11,450 MT as per Mines Department's data. The Id. AO accordingly\nheld that there is also clear violence of provision

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

10,000 metric tons. Therefore, the production\nduring the financial year 2008-09, was in accessible of EC limit to the\ntune of 12,24,950 metric tons even as per lessee's data and of\n14,11,450 MT as per Mines Department's data. The Id. AO accordingly\nheld that there is also clear violence of provision

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

10,000 metric tons. Therefore, the production\nduring the financial year 2008-09, was in accessible of EC limit to the\ntune of 12,24,950 metric tons even as per lessee's data and of\n14,11,450 MT as per Mines Department's data. The Id. AO accordingly\nheld that there is also clear violence of provision

TEKCHAND HARILAL,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

section 69A of the Act. Besides, the AO also disallowed Rs.19,360/- i.e. 10% of carriage outward expenses on adhoc estimate basis Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) but without success. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

disallowance so made by the AO. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the orders of the ld CIT(A), which are hereby upheld. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. ITA No.84/CTK/2024: Asst.year: 2015-16 9. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

disallowance so made by the AO. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the orders of the ld CIT(A), which are hereby upheld. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. ITA No.84/CTK/2024: Asst.year: 2015-16 9. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

disallowance so made by the AO. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the orders of the ld CIT(A), which are hereby upheld. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. ITA No.84/CTK/2024: Asst.year: 2015-16 9. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

disallowance so made by the AO. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the orders of the ld CIT(A), which are hereby upheld. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. ITA No.84/CTK/2024: Asst.year: 2015-16 9. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated