ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

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

disallowance of Rs.l 1,70,84,000/- u/s.36(l)(vii) of the Act be fully deleted. Ground Nos.1 & 2: 22. Without prejudice to the paras 1 to 20 above: C.O. No. 13/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year:20 08- 09 a. As already stated the assessee, during the scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, has produced its books

THE BALASORE BHADRAK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,BALASORE vs. JCIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

24) of section 2 to provide that the profits and gains of any business of banking (including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its members shall be included in the definition of 'income'." 8.4 Provisions relating to concessions are ordinarily expected to be rigidly interpreted as held in CIT v. Anakapalli Co-operative Marketing Society

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

2 | 13 ITA No.78/CTK/2024: Assessment year: 2014-15 ITA No.84/.CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2015-16 ITA No.89/CTK/2024: Assessment year: 2015-16 ITA No.62/CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITA No.82/CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which deserves to be upheld and the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

2 | 13 ITA No.78/CTK/2024: Assessment year: 2014-15 ITA No.84/.CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2015-16 ITA No.89/CTK/2024: Assessment year: 2015-16 ITA No.62/CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITA No.82/CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which deserves to be upheld and the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

2 | 13 ITA No.78/CTK/2024: Assessment year: 2014-15 ITA No.84/.CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2015-16 ITA No.89/CTK/2024: Assessment year: 2015-16 ITA No.62/CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITA No.82/CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which deserves to be upheld and the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

2 | 13 ITA No.78/CTK/2024: Assessment year: 2014-15 ITA No.84/.CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2015-16 ITA No.89/CTK/2024: Assessment year: 2015-16 ITA No.62/CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITA No.82/CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which deserves to be upheld and the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

2 | 13 ITA No.78/CTK/2024: Assessment year: 2014-15 ITA No.84/.CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2015-16 ITA No.89/CTK/2024: Assessment year: 2015-16 ITA No.62/CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITA No.82/CTK/2024: Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which deserves to be upheld and the order

BAITARANI GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

viia) of the Act. Further no material has also been brought before us to show that the provision of Rs.1,68,13,000/- made by the assessee exceeds the qualifying amount mentioned in the said section. We, therefore, delete the disallowance of Rs.16,50,000/- and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 14. In Ground No.3

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV’s claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only

KENDRAPARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,KENDRAPADA vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10

24 /05/ 2017 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Cuttack, dated 25.3.2013, for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed. Since

M/S. THE MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, BALASORE

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

viia) is a notional deduction, which is within the limits of the said section. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition." ITA No. 393/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 201 2 We find that the facts of the instant case being similar with that of The Gurdaspur Central Co-op Circle, Pathankot Bank Ltd. (Supra ) and following

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

2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the amount of ` 53,48,75,077 as income of the appellant which is as per the provisional accounts whereas the actual income of the appellant is Rs. 22,03,68,314, therefore the relief of Rs.31,45,06,763 is to be allowed

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on the advances of Rural branches additional 10% has to be allowed, whereas ld. CIT(A) has restricted the claim. The ld. AR submitted that additional deduction of 10% on Rural advances was not considered by the ld. AO, whereas in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year