DINABANDHU FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & SOCIO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,BHUBANESWAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.450/Ctk/2025 रोक आवेदन सं/Sa No.6/Ctk/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.450/Ctk/2025) (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Dinabandhu Foundation For Educational Research & Socio Commissioner/Income Tax Economic Development, Officer/Nfac, Delhi A/127, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 Pan No. :Aaatd 7338 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dilip Kumar Mohanty, Advocate & Shri Pradyumna Kumar Sahu, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : The Assessee Has Filed Stay Application Along With Appeal In Ita No.450/Ctk/2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019 Against The Order Dated 21.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Thereby Disallowing The Exemption Claimed By The Assessee Trust U/S.11(2) Of The Act On The Ground That The Purpose Mentioned In Form No.10 Was Too Vague & Lacked The Required Specificity. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Had During The Impugned Assessment Year Filed Its Form No.10 Which Reads As Follows:-

disallowed claim of deduction filed under section 11(2). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, however, taking a view that it was not mandatory to specify object in Form No. 10 for which funds were accumulated, set aside order passed by authorities below. On revenue's appeal: HELD Section 11(2) provides that eighty

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/-

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 for the assessment year before us and thus, no disallowance can be made

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

6,7, it is objected that CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.47,61,689/- made by the AO under section 14A r.w.r 80 without appreciating the fact that disallowance under section 14A r.w.r can not exceed the total exempt income, thus assessee prays restriction of the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D the maximum equivalent to the exempt

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed the expenses of Rs.34,11,77,436/- by holding that these expenses were incurred in violation to Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 and, therefore, not allowable u/s.37 of the Act. 6. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowawnce so made, therefore, the present appeal is filed before us by the assessee. 7. Before

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed the expenses of Rs.34,11,77,436/- by holding that these expenses were incurred in violation to Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 and, therefore, not allowable u/s.37 of the Act. 6. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowawnce so made, therefore, the present appeal is filed before us by the assessee. 7. Before

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

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.

disallowing a sum of Rs.7,201/- out of Rs. 16,751 already allowed by the AAC. On appeal by the assessee, the AAC held that there was effective compliance with the provisions of section 34(3)(a) and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the entire claim of development rebate of Rs.16,751/- and as such, the provisions of section

JEEVAN KALYANA SADHANA KENDRA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, SAMBALPUR

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

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

section 11 of the Act and the Auditor filed the audit report in the new format in Form No. 10BB on 04/04/2024. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') while completing the assessment, disallowed the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the audit report u/s 12A of the Act was not filed

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

6. We have heard the rival submissions. In the above cited decisions, it was pointed out that the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset is bound to be computed in accordance with section 50. In other words, section 55(2) is applicable only in respect of sections 48 and 49 and it has no application to section 50. Thus

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

6. We have heard the rival submissions. In the above cited decisions, it was pointed out that the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset is bound to be computed in accordance with section 50. In other words, section 55(2) is applicable only in respect of sections 48 and 49 and it has no application to section 50. Thus

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

6. We have heard the rival submissions. In the above cited decisions, it was pointed out that the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset is bound to be computed in accordance with section 50. In other words, section 55(2) is applicable only in respect of sections 48 and 49 and it has no application to section 50. Thus

CHOUDHURY DALL MILL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDNI CHOWK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1),CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowance under section 40A(3)of the Act can be made if the trader makes cash purchases of agricultural produce from the cultivator. 3. Further, section 269ST, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits receipt of Rs.2lakhormore otherwise than by an account payee cheque/draft or by use P a g e 6 | 11

WOMEN ORGANISATION FOR SOCIO CULTURAL AWARNESS,KEONJHAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS, CUTTACK

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

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

disallowed deduction of the whole of the amount of Rs. 9,58,96,328 applied in various projects and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 10,13,15,635 and raised a demand in the total amount of Rs. 6,99,70,607 in the Intimation under section 143(1) of the Act vide DIN: CPC/2223/B7/410451517 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

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

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.

6. In respect of the disallowance of the alleged bonus paid by applying the provisions of section 43B of the Act, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has made labour payments of nearly Rs.22 943,283.00, which was shown at page 67 of PB under Note 17 to the Profit and Loss account. It was the submission

TATA STEEL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO TATA STEEL LONG PRODUCTS LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Tata Steel Ltd. ( Tata Steel Ltd. (Successor To Vs. Asst. Commis Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tata Steel Long Products Ltd. Tata Steel Long Products Ltd.), Tax-, Circle Circle- Rourkela Bileipada, Joda, Keonjhar Bileipada, Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2803 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Shreya Loyalka, Ca : Ms Shreya Loyalka, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowance 1,28,79,022/- made u/s 37 of the Act. made u/s 37 of the Act. P a g e 1 | 11 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Thereafter vide letter dated 20.05.2024, assessee has filed petition for the admission of additional grounds of appeal under Rule 11 of ITAT Rules, 1963 which are as under: :10) For that upon facts

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 National National Aluminium Aluminium Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(2), Company Limited., Nalco Company Limited., Nalco Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhawan, Bhawan, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacn 7449 M (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca & Shri P. Venugopal Rao, Ca Venugopal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

section remaining of tax audit 43B unpaid on report which March 31st ever is Mar of the earlier previous year under audit 1 2 3 4 5 6 A Bonus 1,11,880 - 1,11,880 B Gratuity 8,60,13,944 - 8,60,13,944 Net paid as on the date of signing of audit report C Cont

JASODA SADAN,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee treating the same as not allowable as per the provisions of Section 11(6