BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

28 results for “disallowance”+ Section 239clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi801Mumbai627Chennai283Bangalore188Kolkata164Ahmedabad118Jaipur85Hyderabad74Pune66Raipur59Chandigarh45Cochin36Surat35Indore31Amritsar30Cuttack28Lucknow24Nagpur17Guwahati16Rajkot15Karnataka12Visakhapatnam12Ranchi8Jodhpur7Panaji7Agra7SC7Telangana4Patna3Allahabad2Jabalpur2Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana2Kerala1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 4018Addition to Income18Disallowance13Section 80I12Section 15412Section 14711Section 153A11Deduction11Section 143(3)9Section 145(3)

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 68

section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.2 Ld LCTDR had further augmented by taking us to the order of CIT(A) whereby it has come out that the assessee contends in the course 30 of appeal hearing that the amount of Rs.40,22,979/- represent expenses on construction of temporary hutments for the labour at the site

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 1948
TDS6

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 339/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 14A

Section 195(6) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2008 (with effect from 1.4.2008) providing that the Payer shall furnish the information relating to payments of such sums in the prescribed form and manner. For this Rule 37BB was introduced and the procedure for making remittances is provided for which the certificate of Chartered Accountant in the prescribed Form 15CB

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

ITA 289/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 92

disallowing the import transactions under section 40 (a) (i) of the Act. Separately, section 195(6) of the Act requires a person referred to in section 195 (1) of the Act to furnish the required information. Accordingly, if the amount remitted is, not chargeable to tax, the remitter is no a person referred to in section

M/S. JAYA MANGALA CONSTRUCTION,KORAPUT vs. ITO, WARD-1, JEYPORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/CTK/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan , DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 44A

disallowed the expenditure, rather should have applied section 44AE of the Act and should have estimated the income of the assessee without changing the status of the firm.” 3. In Ground No.2 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the order of reassessment is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law, as such the same needs

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

ITA 144/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

239) wherein on highly debatable issue involving disallowance u/s.36(1)(vii)), it was held in para-19 to 20 as under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under 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

ITA 143/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

239) wherein on highly debatable issue involving disallowance u/s.36(1)(vii)), it was held in para-19 to 20 as under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under 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

ITA 145/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

239) wherein on highly debatable issue involving disallowance u/s.36(1)(vii)), it was held in para-19 to 20 as under: "19. In the present case, the respondent has stated clearly that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is under section

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT-(TDS), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 323/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

239) held that where Assessing Officer issued impugned notice under section 154 on ground that deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) was to be restricted to provisions of doubtful debt made by assessee in financials, since nature of mistake proposed to be rectified was regarding amount of bad and doubtful debts debited to provision for bad and doubtful debt

SUBHALAXMI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,NAYAGARH vs. JCIT, RAMGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

ITA 132/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 194JSection 40

section 194C(5) of the Act, which provides that in such cases no TDS was to be deducted from the payments made for transportation of goods and, therefore, no disallowance can be made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS from such payments. We find that the assessee before the CIT(A) relied on the decision

KISHAN MOTORS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 169/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

disallowance has been made on the basis of suspicion alone and no basis has been given by the AO. Hence, we direct P a g e 8 | 14 ITA Nos.169 & 37 1/C TK /2 018 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 14- 201 5 the AO to delete the addition made on adhoc basis. Ground No.5 of appeal is allowed

SHRI DILIP KUMAR NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 86/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 15. According to the CIT(A), the assessee has paid wages of Rs.3,05,26,985/- to M/s. Sumasankar Sponge Iron (P) Ltd. . The assessee was liable to deduct tax u/s.194C of the Act, which he failed to do. The assessee explained that M/s. Sumasankar Sponge Iron (P) Ltd. was not a labour

M/S. CHANDAN TRANS-CONS PVT. LTD,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 14/CTK/2024[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% disallowance is liable to be made only in respect of Rs.2,70,239

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA, ODISHA vs. CHANDAN TRANSCONS PRIVATE LIMITED, ROURKELA, ODISHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 339/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% disallowance is liable to be made only in respect of Rs.2,70,239

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA ODISHA vs. CHANDAN TRANSCONS PVT LTD, ROURKELA ODISHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 340/CTK/2023[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% disallowance is liable to be made only in respect of Rs.2,70,239

M/S. CHANDAN TRANS-CONS PVT. LTD,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 15/CTK/2024[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack09 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.14 & 15 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009 09 & 2009-2010 M/S. Chandan Trans M/S. Chandan Trans-Cons Pvt Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Dcit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Ltd., At-Ff/2, Civil Township, Ff/2, Civil Township, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccc 5185 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% disallowance is liable to be made only in respect of Rs.2,70,239

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 315/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 40

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

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

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

ITA 331/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 40

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

ITA 560/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/A.K.Sabat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

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

DCIT, ROURKELA vs. SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR AHLUWALIA, SUNDERGARH

In the result, appeal of the department is allowed and that of the

ITA 63/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 153A

disallowance u/s.14A r.w. 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 of Rs.6,11,354/- and another addition on account of gross profit as reflected in the books of accounts with the rate of gross profit @ 56% of turnover of Rs.4,94,60,415/-. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A). 3. Ld CIT(A) after considering

GAURAV KUMAR AGARWALLA,KALAHANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 283/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra/Rohan JainFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

239 ITR 321 (SC) and proceed the adjudicate the same on merits. 3. The additional ground of appeal raised in both the appeals read as follows: “That the impugned initiation of 147 proceeding is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law, as there were true and full disclosure and there were nothing new material, further breach of section