DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. This is a well established principle. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in (2010) 193 Taxman 234(SC); (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) has interpreted the provisions of Section

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Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act.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

193) wherein on highly debatable issue involving disallowance u/s.40A(3), it was held in para-8 to 11 as under: "8. In the case before us it was brought to the notice of the Ld. AO by RAP that in the original assessment made by him, he overlooked the mandatory provision of section

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

193) wherein on highly debatable issue involving disallowance u/s.40A(3), it was held in para-8 to 11 as under: "8. In the case before us it was brought to the notice of the Ld. AO by RAP that in the original assessment made by him, he overlooked the mandatory provision of section

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

193) wherein on highly debatable issue involving disallowance u/s.40A(3), it was held in para-8 to 11 as under: "8. In the case before us it was brought to the notice of the Ld. AO by RAP that in the original assessment made by him, he overlooked the mandatory provision of section

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.

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 40A(3) passed a rectification order under section 154, then overlooking mandatory P a g e 7 | 11 Assessment Year

SRI ALOK AGRAWAL,SUNDERGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income only and not at a higher figure. Once that was so, we do not consider it appropriate to discuss the scope of Section 263 of the Act as the same has been rendered academic in view of the issue being answered in favour of the assessee on merits

SRI ALOK AGARWAL,SUNDERGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.319/Ctk/2018 & Ita No.160/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sri Alok Agrawal, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur Rathor Colony, Ocl Approach Road, Rajgangpur, District-Sundergarh Pan No. : Afkpa 2367 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 26.03.2018 & 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Similar Issue Has Been Raised In Both The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein & The Outcome Of The Same Shall Be Applied Mutatis Mutandis To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2014-2015 Also. 3. Grounds Raised In Ita No.319/Ctk/2018 For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Notice Issued Under Section 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pr. Cit") & The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law.

disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income only and not at a higher figure. Once that was so, we do not consider it appropriate to discuss the scope of Section 263 of the Act as the same has been rendered academic in view of the issue being answered in favour of the assessee on merits

M/S. ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S Orissa State Cooperative Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar At-D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2018 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/05/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.06.2017, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0039/2016-17, U/S.143(3)/250 Of The I.T.Act For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Not Pressed The Grounds No.2 & 3 Of The Grounds Of Appeal. Accordingly, We Dismiss The Ground Nos.2&3 As Not Pressed. 3. The Effective Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under :- 1. Ld Cit (Appeals) Is Wrong & Unlawful In Upholding The Decision Of Assessing Officer With Respect To Disallowance Of Interest Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80P(2) (D). Interest Income From Orissa State Co Operative Bank Ltd Being Another Co Operative Society To The Tune Of Rs. 30,37,898/-. 4. Thus Ld Cit (Appeals) Is Wrong In Holding That, The Whole Of Rs. 44,02,128/- Interest Income Is Income From Fixed Deposits & Is Neither Deductible U/S 80P(2)(D) Nor Eligible For Set Off Against Carried Forward Loss For Being Income From Other Sources.

disallowance under the head interest income and rental income by relying on the following judicial decisions: i) Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation ltd vs CIT, (2012 20 TAXMANN.COM 834 (P&H) ii) Mantola Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd vs CIT, (2014) 50 taxmann.com 278 (Delhi) iii) State Bank of India vs CIT, (2016) 72 taxmann.com

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

disallowance under the head interest income and rental income by relying on the following judicial decisions: i) Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation ltd vs CIT, (2012 20 TAXMANN.COM 834 (P&H) ii) Mantola Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd vs CIT, (2014) 50 taxmann.com 278 (Delhi) iii) State Bank of India vs CIT, (2016) 72 taxmann.com

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 32(1) and, therefore, there is no question of allowing depreciation on said rights. 46. We find that the assessee has raised these additional grounds as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in W.P (C) No.24 of 2013 and Misc. Case No.5716 of 2013 order dated 20.3.2013. In view of above, we admit these

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. This is a well established principle. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in (2010) 193 Taxman 234(SC); (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) has interpreted the provisions of Section

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. This is a well established principle. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in (2010) 193 Taxman 234(SC); (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) has interpreted the provisions of Section

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

disallowance ujs.40(a)(i) of the Act. This is a well established principle. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT reported in (2010) 193 Taxman 234(SC); (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) has interpreted the provisions of Section

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

disallowance under dispute is 2,089.98 grams. 2.13. That, the Authorities below did not consider, the explanation of the Assessee that Gold Jewellery weighing of 1500 grams each were received during partition of family and during marriage of the Assessee with K. Damayanti. Even though, the Appellant produced these evidences repeatedly before lower Authorities without uttering a single objection, Authorities

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

disallowance under dispute is 2,089.98 grams. 2.13. That, the Authorities below did not consider, the explanation of the Assessee that Gold Jewellery weighing of 1500 grams each were received during partition of family and during marriage of the Assessee with K. Damayanti. Even though, the Appellant produced these evidences repeatedly before lower Authorities without uttering a single objection, Authorities

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

disallowance under dispute is 2,089.98 grams. 2.13. That, the Authorities below did not consider, the explanation of the Assessee that Gold Jewellery weighing of 1500 grams each were received during partition of family and during marriage of the Assessee with K. Damayanti. Even though, the Appellant produced these evidences repeatedly before lower Authorities without uttering a single objection, Authorities

M/S. SEAMARK BIO ORGANIC PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singh

section 37(1). 11. Before us, the Ld. CIT DR has also much harped upon the decision of the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (SS) vs. CBDT (supra), in support of the argument that CBDT Circular has been approved and confirmed by the High Court and therefore

ORISSA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

193 ITR 674 (Ker.) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 199 ITR 12, wherein the expression 'Industrial Undertaking' in section 80-J has been interpreted to mean any venture or enterprise which a person undertakes to do and which has relation to some industry or has some industrial Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 consequences. The assessee

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