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

disallowed claim of the assessee company by misinterpreting the provisions as contained in section 37(1) of the Act. The Explanation 2 as inserted is reproduced hereunder: “Explanation 2 of Section 37(1), states that any expenditure incurred on corporate social responsibility activities as per section 135

INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

135 Taxman 393 (kar), wherein, it was held that compounding charges paid for unauthorized construction was claimed as deduction while computing income from business. It was also held that the compounding fee was paid for the purpose of compounding a criminal offence and was therefore hit by the provision of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. 27. Replying

ACIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

135 Taxman 393 (kar), wherein, it was held that compounding charges paid for unauthorized construction was claimed as deduction while computing income from business. It was also held that the compounding fee was paid for the purpose of compounding a criminal offence and was therefore hit by the provision of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. 27. Replying

NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK (SUCCEEDED BY ODISHA GRAMYA BANK),BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Section 14A r.w.r.8D stands deleted. 7 4. Ground No.3 relates to disallowance under Deduction on Audit Fees Rs.15,00,000/-. 4.1 It was submitted by the ld. AR that the AO had disallowed the said amount on the ground that it was a provision. The ld. AR drew our attention to page 15 of the assessment order. It was submitted

ABHIMANYU SAHU,BUXIPALLI vs. PCIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

135/- was not under Limited Scrutiny, hence, the AO has not enquired into the matter while passing the assessment order. Although both the issues were not under limited scrutiny but from the spirit and mandate of section 263 of the Act, which provides revisional powers to Pr. CIT/CIT in the cases where the assessment order or any other proceedings under

ACIT, , SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.219/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Acit, Sambalpur Vs Smt. Indrani Patnaik, A-6, Comercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela Pan No. :Accpp 6164 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 29.03.2023, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.Bhubaneswar-2/10625/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Peripheral Development Charges Of Rs. 49,49,231/- As Such Expenditure Is Not Allowable As Per The Provisions Of Section 37 Of The Act. 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10,69,56,849/- U/S 14A As The Assessee Has Exempt Income During The Year. 3. The Cit(A) Was Not Correct In Deleting The Addition U/S 14A Holding That Satisfaction Is Not Recorded By The Ao, When The Assessee Has Not Suomoto Disallowed Any Expenditure Related To Earning Exempt Income As Decided By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Maxopp Investment Ltd Dtd 12.02.2018. 4. The Cit(A) Was Not Correct In Deleting The Addition U/S 14A, When The Ao Has Given A Finding In The Assessment Order That The Assessee Has Shown Investment That Yielded Tax Free

section 37 of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,69,56,849/- u/s 14A as the assessee has exempt income during the year. 3. The CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the addition u/s 14A holding that satisfaction is not recorded by the AO, when the assessee has not suomoto disallowed

RIO TINTO ORISSA MINING PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance that the impugned expenses are in the nature of pre-operative expenses requires capitalisation and the assessee is not correct in claiming that it has already started its business operation. 12. Keeping in view the observations of the authorities below, I am surprised that the assessee has shown income from service rendered by it during the financial year

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

135/- are to be allowed. 6. For that when the forums below including the CIT (A) has not doubted that expenses under the head 'Fuel" is only at Rs. 1,81,215/- [out of Rs. 8,89,342.00, which includes Electricity and Water Charges of Rs. 7,08,127/-] relatable to the vehicle only, the estimated disallowance @ 5% based only

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. SERAJUDDIN & CO. PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Section 37 of the Act the said expenses had been disallowed by the AO. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. ACIT, in ITA Nos.289 & 290/Nag/2006 and also the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case

M/S. MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

disallowance of adjustment on account of unabsorbed depreciation is a serious procedure irregularity, then it was not open to the Pr.CIT to treat the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within meaning of section 263 of the Act. There fore the Pr.CIT order under section 263 setting aside the assessment be cancelled and AO's order

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

135. Here, we may specifically mention that in the case of Durga Condev Pvt. Ltd. (supra), though one of us is co signatory in that order still we differ from the said order as there is no bravery in perpetuating an error in law. The fact that the assessment order is dated 31.12.2010 and there is no evidence available

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

135. Here, we may specifically mention that in the case of Durga Condev Pvt. Ltd. (supra), though one of us is co signatory in that order still we differ from the said order as there is no bravery in perpetuating an error in law. The fact that the assessment order is dated 31.12.2010 and there is no evidence available

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

135. Here, we may specifically mention that in the case of Durga Condev Pvt. Ltd. (supra), though one of us is co signatory in that order still we differ from the said order as there is no bravery in perpetuating an error in law. The fact that the assessment order is dated 31.12.2010 and there is no evidence available

GANESH MILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KARANJIA,MAYURBHANJ,ODISHA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BALESWAR CIRCLE,BALESWAR

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

135-137. A perusal of the same also reveal that doubts were raised about the sundry creditors and disallowance was made on adhoc basis without any examination. This also creates doubts about the genuineness and existence of the sundry creditors in this year also. As these are the credits in the books of accounts of the assessee as per Section

PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 69A as made by the learned Assessing Officer is not correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 4. For that disallowance of cost of acquisition of the property at Rs. 1,57,53,865/-and claim of deduction of Rs.82,46,135

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

135 (PC); P. C. Mullick vs. CIT [1938J 6 ITR 206 (PC); ClT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961J 41 lTR 367 (SC) and Vibhuti Glass Works vs. ClT [1989J 177 lTR 439 (SC). In the case of CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala [2003 J 259 ITR 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, after referring to various precedents on the subject

THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.379/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Industrial Development Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) M/S Industrial Development Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra,Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 15.06.2017 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhubaneswar, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita

disallowed. The appellant made his submission by referring the (ITAT) Order and also explained how the doubtful loans and advances have been written off without disturbing the provision. The Learned Assessing Officer concluded his opinion stating that "however, the principle of resjudicata is not applicable in income tax proceedings". The Learned Assessing Officer has gone beyond his jurisdiction when

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.379/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Industrial Development Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) M/S Industrial Development Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra,Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 15.06.2017 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhubaneswar, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita

disallowed. The appellant made his submission by referring the (ITAT) Order and also explained how the doubtful loans and advances have been written off without disturbing the provision. The Learned Assessing Officer concluded his opinion stating that "however, the principle of resjudicata is not applicable in income tax proceedings". The Learned Assessing Officer has gone beyond his jurisdiction when

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 194A(3)(iii)(f), the Central Government notifies the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi for non-deduction of TDS. As the issue is covered by the said notification of CBDT and as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the Notification (supra), we find no error in the order