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

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

1 - At the outset, on this ground relates to disallowance of receipt of Rs.1,30,60,000/- by the assessee company towards share capital by treating the same as Income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act by Ld AO. Ld DR brought to our attention the relevant paras of order of AO and CIT(A), also furnished before

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

disallowed the same by invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the accordingly addition of Rs.2180,04,41,000/- was made by him. 4. On appeal before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted as under: “(1) The Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of fertilizers. (2) For manufacture of fertilizers, the Company mostly imports raw materialsunder

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED,BURLA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.141/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 21.04.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Notice Issued & Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Pr. Cit) Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, More So When The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Further Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, As The Subject Matter Of Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act Were Duly Considered By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Assessment Order Was Passed After Making All The Enquiries & Verification & With Due Application Of Mind.

1) of Section 263 of the Act, 1961, is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and can be exercised only if the two circumstances specified therein must exist: (i) The order should be erroneous; and (ii) By virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice must have been caused to the interests of the Revenue. An order cannot be termed

M/S. VISION HABITATE & SERVICES PVT. LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.214/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Vision Habitate & Services Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur-768004 Private Limited, Kadambari Complex, Gole Bazar, Sambalpur-768001 Pan No. : Aadcn 4768 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.N.Agrawal/Binod Agrawal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 30.03.2019 For The A.Y.2014-2015 On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Order U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts. 2. That The Order U/S. 263, Stated To Have Been Passed On 30.03.2019, Is Ante Dated & Barred By Limitation, Being Issued & Served Upon The Appellant On 30.04.2019, Which Is After The Expiry Of Period Of Limitation On 31.03.2019. 3. That The Assessment Order Dt.29.12.2016 Making An Addition Of Rs.27,51,100 To The Returned Income U/S.56(2)(Viib) Consequent Upon Valuation Of Book Value Of 4,510 Nos. Of Equity Shares @ Rs.739 Per Share As On 31.03.2013 Allotted On 31.03.2014 @ Rs.1,349 Per Share. Thus, The Difference Of Rs.610 Per Share Multiplied By 4,510 Nos. Of Shares Allotted Coming To Rs.27,51,100 Has Been Added As Above By The Id. Ao. The Said Valuation & The Consequential Addition Has Been Disputed By The Appellant In The Appeal In Form No.35 E-Filed Before The Id.

1 to Section 263 of the Act.” 12. Now, adverting to the facts of the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the AO examined the issue of provision for interest on income tax and disallowed

M/S. MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

disallowance of adjustment on account of unabsorbed depreciation is a serious procedure irregularity, then it was not open to the Pr.CIT to treat the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within meaning of section 263 of the Act. There fore the Pr.CIT order under section 263 setting aside the assessment be cancelled and AO's order

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANSWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

1 | 19 M/s. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., O R D E R Per Bench ITA No.34 & 35/CTK/2019; Asst.Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar, both dated 28.3.2018 in Appeal No. PCIT- 1/BBSR/263/14/AABCG 5398/2017-18 and PCIT-1/BBSR/263/15/AABCG 5398/2017-18 for the assessment years

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

1 | 19 M/s. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., O R D E R Per Bench ITA No.34 & 35/CTK/2019; Asst.Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar, both dated 28.3.2018 in Appeal No. PCIT- 1/BBSR/263/14/AABCG 5398/2017-18 and PCIT-1/BBSR/263/15/AABCG 5398/2017-18 for the assessment years

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

1 | 19 M/s. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., O R D E R Per Bench ITA No.34 & 35/CTK/2019; Asst.Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar, both dated 28.3.2018 in Appeal No. PCIT- 1/BBSR/263/14/AABCG 5398/2017-18 and PCIT-1/BBSR/263/15/AABCG 5398/2017-18 for the assessment years

M/S GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

1 | 19 M/s. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., O R D E R Per Bench ITA No.34 & 35/CTK/2019; Asst.Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar, both dated 28.3.2018 in Appeal No. PCIT- 1/BBSR/263/14/AABCG 5398/2017-18 and PCIT-1/BBSR/263/15/AABCG 5398/2017-18 for the assessment years

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANSWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

1 | 19 M/s. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., O R D E R Per Bench ITA No.34 & 35/CTK/2019; Asst.Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar, both dated 28.3.2018 in Appeal No. PCIT- 1/BBSR/263/14/AABCG 5398/2017-18 and PCIT-1/BBSR/263/15/AABCG 5398/2017-18 for the assessment years

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANSWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

1 | 19 M/s. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., O R D E R Per Bench ITA No.34 & 35/CTK/2019; Asst.Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar, both dated 28.3.2018 in Appeal No. PCIT- 1/BBSR/263/14/AABCG 5398/2017-18 and PCIT-1/BBSR/263/15/AABCG 5398/2017-18 for the assessment years

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

1) of the Act, we find that the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 10.02.2016 against which the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who passed the order on 10.01.2019. The date of impugned order u/s 263 of the Act is 30.03.2018. It means that when the order u/s 263

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

Section 263 of the Act directed the AO to decide on the chargeability of unexplained cash credit of Rs.2,69,16,055/- in the form of “sundry creditors for raw material and expenses”, to income tax as the income in addition to the returned income of the assessee for assessment year concerned u/s.68 or 41(1) of the I.T.Act. From

DHANESWAR RATH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL SCIENCES,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

disallowance of depreciation while framing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. 18. The first grievance of ld A.R. is that the ld CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity before passing the order u/s.263 of the Act. Section 263(1

SMT. MAMTA SHARMA,BARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

section 263 of the Act to bring to tax the income arising out of the above two issues. In response to notice issued by ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee submitted the explanations on 11.2.2019. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. Pr. CIT passed order 11.3.2019 u/s.263 of the Act, inter alia, stating that the information was not available

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

1(b) to the provisions of Section 263 of the Act defines records. It was the submission that the records included any proceedings not only for the impugned assessment year but also earlier and later assessment years. It was further submitted that a perusal of the total income declared by the assessee shows that the assessee has shown the income

BASUKINATH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD,SUNDARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 of the income-tax Act on the ground that the assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 15. In the result, the decision of the Tribunal in quashing the order of C.I.T passed under Section 263of the I.T Act cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we see no merit

BASUKINATH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 of the income-tax Act on the ground that the assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 15. In the result, the decision of the Tribunal in quashing the order of C.I.T passed under Section 263of the I.T Act cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we see no merit

SREE ALANKAR,GANJAM vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer made certain queries, to which the assessee replied and after inquiry, and being satisfied with the assessee's answers to the queries, accepted his declared income and passed the assessment order. The Commissioner, however, issued a notice under section 263