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
ITA 343/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Mar 2021AY 2014-15
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
For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR
Section 111JSection 115JSection 14ASection 68
disallowance made was not justifiable. In fact, the Assessing Officer straightaway proceeded to the second limb of Section 14(2) of the Act, which
