DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ODISHA vs. ODISHA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED, ODISHA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Vs. Odisha Odisha State State Beverages Beverages 2Nd Building, Building, Rajaswas Rajaswas Vihar, Vihar, Corporation Corporation Limited., Limited., 2 Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Floor, Floor, Fortune Fortune Towers, Towers, S.E.Rly S.E.Rly Proj. Proj. Complex, Complex, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajit Mishra, Ca Satyajit Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of The Act For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2022 By Disallowing A Sum Of 022 By Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.3,00,00,000/ Rs.3,00,00,000/- Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings

disallowance in order to buy peace of mind. It is submitted that the issue of allowance of license fees is highly debatable and the matter has since now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd(supra), it cannot be said that the claim of the assessee was malafide

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

271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation\npetition that

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

sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "147", "148", "143(3)", "37(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the reopening of assessment based on a commission's report without independent verification is valid, and whether expenses incurred in alleged illegal mining are disallowable

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

sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "147", "148", "143(3)", "37(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated based on the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report were valid? Whether the disallowance

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

271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006- 07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G. A. No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. 11. No order as to costs. [Copy Enclosed CLPB-2.Pg.Nos. P a g e 47 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (H').TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED U/S.124(3) IS APPLICABLE WHERE OBJECTION

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

271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation\npetition that

MARUTI TRADING CO,JAGAATSINGHPUR vs. ITO WARD PARADEEP, PARADEEP

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Maruti Trading Co., Maruti Trading Co., Panisalia, Vs. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Jagatsinghpur. Jagatsinghpur. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aalfm 3677 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /08/2023 O R D E R

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted

SMT. POONAM PUJARI,ROURKELA vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanbefore Member & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of expenditures claimed under the head “transportation charges” and since no TDS was deducted u/s.194C of the Act on the payments which are made in excess of the limits provided u/s.194C of the Act by making TDS. This is a willful

INDU DEVI TIBAREWAL,CUTTACK vs. ASST.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.196/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Indu Devi Tibarewal, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, At/Po: Nayasarak, Bhubaneswar Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Acxpt 4424 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.197/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Siddarthini Nanda, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Nayasarak, Bhubaneswar Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Abapn 0104 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

disallowed agricultural income and had treated the same as income from other sources. In the assessment order the AO has initiated penalty particulars. It was submitted that in the show cause notice issued u/s.271/274 of the Act, the AO has not struck off inappropriate portion of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. It was also submitted that

SIDDARTHINI NANDA,NAYASARAK, CUTTACK vs. ASST. CIT( CIRCLE-1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.196/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Indu Devi Tibarewal, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, At/Po: Nayasarak, Bhubaneswar Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Acxpt 4424 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.197/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Siddarthini Nanda, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Nayasarak, Bhubaneswar Cuttack-753002 Pan No. :Abapn 0104 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

disallowed agricultural income and had treated the same as income from other sources. In the assessment order the AO has initiated penalty particulars. It was submitted that in the show cause notice issued u/s.271/274 of the Act, the AO has not struck off inappropriate portion of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. It was also submitted that

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

disallowance only on the ground that it is a fresh claim and as it is noticed that the assessee has filed return in respect to notice u/s.148 and therefore, the return filed is deemed to be filed under section 139 of the Act and the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of interest on housing loan paid to the extent

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

disallowance only on the ground that it is a fresh claim and as it is noticed that the assessee has filed return in respect to notice u/s.148 and therefore, the return filed is deemed to be filed under section 139 of the Act and the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of interest on housing loan paid to the extent

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.

c. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the charging of interest of Rs.4,74,56,121/- and Rs.21,14,969/-u/s 2348 and 234C of the Act respectively by the learned Assessing Officer, being unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts, and legally untenable ought to be deleted. 10. That

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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 is empowered to strike it down; d) "reason to believe" suggest that the belief based upon reasonable grounds; e) If the reason for his belief is not based

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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 is empowered to strike it down; d) "reason to believe" suggest that the belief based upon reasonable grounds; e) If the reason for his belief is not based