PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 69A as made by the learned Assessing Officer is not correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 4. For that disallowance of cost of acquisition of the property at Rs. 1,57,53,865/-and claim of deduction of Rs.82,46,135/- u/s.54 totalling to Rs.2,40,00,000/-and addition of the same

ARSS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATION CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-2013

B. Where such Assessee is deemed not to be an assessee in default in terms of the first proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 201 of the Act, then, in such event, “it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. G.V.V.CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

Appeal of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S G.V.V. Constructions Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.358, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 3649 Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.36/Ctk/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S G.V.V.Constructions Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.358, Bhubaneswar Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 3649 Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar In I.T.Appeal No.0593/2013-14, Dated 9-3-2015, Passed U/S.271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Matter Was Called For Hearing. Hence, We Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & The Submissions Of Ld. Dr. 3. We Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.297/Ctk/2015, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

disallowance of expenses in respect of 40A(3), 6 & CO No.36/CTK/2015 40(a)(ia) of the Act and donations and other being the interest income was not offered by the assessee. The CIT(A) has dealt on the submissions of the assessee and relied on the judicial decisions and deleted the penalty. We found the ld. AO is not clear

BISWAJIT NAYAK,ROURKELA, ODISHA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.19/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Biswajit Nayak, Vs Acit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Qtr.No.B-174, Sector-1, Rourkela-769008 Pan No. :Aaqpn 2087 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/05/2024

disallowance of interest on car loan and depreciation” in para 5.0 where no satisfaction was recorded with regard to the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 5 Thus, it clearly evident from the assessment order that the AO was very much clear in his mind that the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act were

JCIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. DUSHASHAN JENA, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal was allowed

disallowance from the financial statements. Therefore, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied as per the ratio of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, 258 ITR 85 (P&H), wherein it is held as under:- “In order to attract clause (c ) of section 271(1), it is necessary that there must

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. DUSHASAN JENA, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal was allowed

disallowance from the financial statements. Therefore, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied as per the ratio of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh, 258 ITR 85 (P&H), wherein it is held as under:- “In order to attract clause (c ) of section 271(1), it is necessary that there must

BISWAJIT DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

disallowed the claimof the assessee u/s 10B on this basis after considering the Explanation (iii) of section 10AA as well as definition given u/s 2(29BA). Thus, due to the decision rendered by the Special Bench, High Courts and Supreme Court subsequent to the date of order in the case of Chowgule & Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.162/PNJ/2006

ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. BISWAJIT DAS, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

disallowed the claimof the assessee u/s 10B on this basis after considering the Explanation (iii) of section 10AA as well as definition given u/s 2(29BA). Thus, due to the decision rendered by the Special Bench, High Courts and Supreme Court subsequent to the date of order in the case of Chowgule & Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.162/PNJ/2006

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.

271 ITR £5 (Demi) (Page 64), 5. in the Ground No.3 of the appeal filed against the assessment order, the Assessee has also contended that the said order is barred by limitation and non est in law, being served on 12.01.2017, after the expiry of limitation u/s.153 on 31,12.2016* Based upon the foregoing submissions, the said order is most

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

B. J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat AIR 1978 SC1109 that for validity of the assessment there is no need for the department to serve the assessment order on the assessee before the prescribed period of limitation provided for completion of assessment. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case is that in order to establish

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

B. J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat AIR 1978 SC1109 that for validity of the assessment there is no need for the department to serve the assessment order on the assessee before the prescribed period of limitation provided for completion of assessment. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case is that in order to establish

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

B. J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat AIR 1978 SC1109 that for validity of the assessment there is no need for the department to serve the assessment order on the assessee before the prescribed period of limitation provided for completion of assessment. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case is that in order to establish

M/S. SHREE SAI ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2014-2015

disallowed by the Assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. I find that on similar issue, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Muthoot Financiers (supra) has dismissed the appeal of the revenue deleting the penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act observing as under: “9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view

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

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

b) The expression "reason to believe' does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of Income Tax Officer. Such a belief has to br founded upon legally sustainable information/basis; c) Where such satisfaction is not based on any material or it cannot withstand the test of reason, which is a integral part of it then it falls through 'and the Court

KALINGA MINING CORPORATION,CUTTACK vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

b) The expression "reason to believe' does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of Income Tax Officer. Such a belief has to br founded upon legally sustainable information/basis; c) Where such satisfaction is not based on any material or it cannot withstand the test of reason, which is a integral part of it then it falls through 'and the Court

M G MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.402/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-2009) वष" M G Mohanty, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar 5A, Forest Park, Odisha Pan No. :Aaffm 2127 H (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर : Sh B.K.Mahapatra & Sh. A.K.Sabat, Cas राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.08.2024, Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-1/10098/2016-17 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067224134(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Appellate Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [In Short "Cit (Appeals)") Dated 01.08.2024 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 [In Short "I.T.Act/ "Act] In Dismissing The Appeal Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice, Contrary To Facts, Unjustified, Arbitrary, Erroneous, Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts & Legally Untenable.

b. That the assessee denies its liability for interest of Rs.4.74.56.121/- and Rs.21,14,969/-charged u/s.2348 and 234C of the Act respectively and the said interest charged is wholly unwarranted, unjustified, excessive, arbitrary, erroneous, wrong and bad in law and legally untenable. c. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the charging of interest of Rs.4

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

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

B) of the P&L account. Since the assessee 22 Mah anadi Coalf ield Ltyd., failed to substantiate the basis of write off, the Assessing Officer added the same to the total income of the assessee. 39. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that the expenditure in question is a legitimate expenditure as the first item

M/S. KASI SALES & SERVICES PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

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

disallowances have been made only on the ground that the assessee could not satisfactorily explained the same. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that as there is no finding by the Assessing Officer that the expenses claimed by the assessee are either bogus or inflated, no penalty under section 271(1