NESCO EMPLOYEES GRATUITY FUND TRUST,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 143(1) and disallowed the exemption claim, raising a demand. A rectification application under section 154 was filed, stating

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

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under section 143(3) is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction and/or in excess of jurisdiction, on the grounds amongst others, that he failed to establish that he possessed legal and valid jurisdiction under

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

disallowances made by the AO were deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 147", "Section 148", "Section 37(1)", "Section 143(3)" ], "issues

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

disallowance, it is necessary to examine the\nsaid statute in detail to see whether the expenditure of Rs.\n129,42,25,780/ incurred by the assessee falls within its ambit Section\n37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation appended to it are\nreproduced as under\nSection 37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed

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

sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "147", "148", "143(3)", "37(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the reopening of assessment based on a commission's report without independent verification is valid, and whether expenses incurred in alleged illegal mining are disallowable

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

sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "147", "148", "143(3)", "37(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated based on the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report were valid? Whether the disallowance

MAHARAJA AGRASEN TRUST,BHADRAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK

In the result, appeal of the assesee is allowed

disallowance of application of funds for a charitable trust.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "12(A)", "143(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the CPC can disallow

SIKSHYA BHARATI TRUST,BANKI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Sikshya Sikshya Bharat Bharati Trust, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore At:College At:College Road, Road, Banki Banki- 75408 Dist: Dist: Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aakts 6470 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/09 9/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /09/2023 O R D E R 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) ,Nfac, Delhi ,Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.5.2023 In Appeal No.Itb Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1052730744 24/1052730744(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 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 Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

disallowed while processing the return u/s.143(1) but due to technical issue notice under proviso to section 143(1) i.e. prima

KALI KALUSHA NASANA SEVA TRUST,CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1) of the Act. The denial of the expenses in its entirety, which represents the application, is one of the adjustments which is permissible in the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. Even assuming that the assesee does not have the registration u/s.12AA of the Act, still the expenses claimed cannot be disallowed

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

143(3) of Income Tax Act dated 23rd October 2018 had denied the exemption claimed by the Appellant u/s 10(46) of Income Tax Act on the ground that the appellant failed to file its return of Income as per the provisions of section 139(4C)(g) of the Income Tax Act. The AO had also observed that the notification

SAI VIDYA MANDIR,BARIPADA MAYURBHANJ vs. ITO,WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19

143(1) shows that what is prima facie adjustment that can be made u/s.143(1) has been categorically mentioned in the said section. The said section is not open-ended. The adjustments permissible are more specific as mentioned in the said section. The disallowance

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

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.

1), was thus not justified. The Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Shiv Shakti Traders vs. ACIT (139 tilonann.com 193) held that where Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) and thereafter he, on basis of audit objection to effect that assessee had made payments for purchasing of trading goods in violation of provisions of section

SHREE SHIRDI SAIBABA SEVA CHARATABLE TRUST,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO EXEMPTION CUTTACK

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiashree Shirdi Saibaba Seva Charitable I.T.O., Trust, Cuttack. Vs. Mining Road, Keonjhar Garh, Keonjhar-758001 (Odisha) Pan No. Aakts 5002 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(1) of the Act. Admittedly, a wrong return has been filed by the assessee. The return under which the assessee ought to have filed his ITR. Perusal of the intimation also shows that the CPC has accepted the status of the assessee. The CPC has only disallowed

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make

M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

disallowance resulting 5 IT(SS)A No.31-44/CTK/2022 & ITA No.109/CTK/2022 in addition to income made for Rs.19,39,60,866/-, is directed to be deleted.” The ITAT by its judgment dated 16th May, 2014 relied on the selfsame reasoning and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Likewise, the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 5th July, 2017, affirmed the judgments

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

143(3) of the Act, dated 06.05.2020. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that order dated 08.01.2025 as passed under Section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Kolkata-22 hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned CIT(Appeals)’ dismissing the appeal