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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRI SAI RAMESWARA SOLVENTS PVT. LTD., KORAPUT

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण) अऩीऱ सं/It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.24-26/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.27-29/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act was not to be done as payments had been made in excess of Rs.20,000/- or above on a single day to a single party. It was the submission that the assessee had responded mentioning four issues, first in respect of expenses below or at Rs.20000/-, second was the payment to cultivator and third

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRI SAI RAMESWARA SOLVENTS PVT. LTD., KORAPUT

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण) अऩीऱ सं/It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.24-26/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.27-29/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act was not to be done as payments had been made in excess of Rs.20,000/- or above on a single day to a single party. It was the submission that the assessee had responded mentioning four issues, first in respect of expenses below or at Rs.20000/-, second was the payment to cultivator and third

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRI SAI RAMESWARA SOLVENTS PVT. LTD., KORAPUT

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण) अऩीऱ सं/It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.24-26/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.27-29/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act was not to be done as payments had been made in excess of Rs.20,000/- or above on a single day to a single party. It was the submission that the assessee had responded mentioning four issues, first in respect of expenses below or at Rs.20000/-, second was the payment to cultivator and third

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

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, CENTAL 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

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

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.

234/- which were not enquired by the AO. 32. We also observe that the issue of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,34,85,465/- and MAT credit of Rs.26,33,135/- 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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI DILIP KUMAR GHASHYAMDAS TEBREWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Ashok Ashok Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7747 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Dilip Dilip Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7748 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

234 days in filing the appeals by the revenue in the respective appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 6. The first ground was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO representing the revaluation of closing stock. 7. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that in the course of assessment

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI ASHO KUMAR GHANSHYAMDAS TIBAREWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Ashok Ashok Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7747 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle- -1(1) Vs. Sri Sri Dilip Dilip Kumar Kumar Cuttack Ghanshyamdas Ghanshyamdas Tebarewal, Tebarewal, Prop. Prop. Bisandayal Bisandayal Jewellers, Jewellers, Naya Sarak, Cuttack Naya Sarak, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaxpt 7748 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

234 days in filing the appeals by the revenue in the respective appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 6. The first ground was against the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO representing the revaluation of closing stock. 7. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that in the course of assessment

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

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

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

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

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

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

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

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

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

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

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

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

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

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 National National Aluminium Aluminium Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(2), Company Limited., Nalco Company Limited., Nalco Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhawan, Bhawan, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacn 7449 M (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca & Shri P. Venugopal Rao, Ca Venugopal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

section 43B of the Act. However, in the computation of total income you have disallowed Rs.20,9,64,656/- only. Please explain as to why the differential amount should not be added back to the total income. While we appreciate the observation of discrepancy in the sum offered for disallowance by us in our own reasoning, it is humbly submitted