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

disallowance of Rs. 47,61,689/- made u/s. 14A r.w.r 80 being expenses incurred for earning exempt dividend income without appreciating the fact that assessee's own interest free funds was exceeding the investment made for earning exempted income and in similar facts disallowances made in the assessment orders for the A.Y's. 2012-13 & 2013-14 was deleted

MARUTI ESTATE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2004-05

section 80IB. Hence the claim of Rs. 16,65,433/- was disallowed by the AO and added back to the total income." Asse ssment Year : 20 04- 05 5. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.5,97,480/- for concealment of income u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, which was confirmed in appeal

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

disallow the provision for NPA of Rs.2,43,94,237/- in place of Rs.2,45,59,609/-“ 19. The assessee in its written submission has only stated that the CIT(A) failed to discuss newly introduced amendment to section

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word "may" and not "shall". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case

ITO, KHURDA vs. BULARAM DALAI, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

237 ITR 13 (SC), the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in cancelling the reassessment proceeding for the assessment year 2009-10 which was initiated by the A.O on the basis of Revenue Audit Party's objection. 4. Any other grounds, if any, shall be pressed at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that