GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowances. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the claim under section 11(2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association 247 ITR 201 (SC). I.T.A. Nos.: 436 & 437/CTK/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gram Vikas Trust. Ground No. 4: The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowances. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the claim under section 11(2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association 247 ITR 201 (SC). I.T.A. Nos.: 436 & 437/CTK/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gram Vikas Trust. Ground No. 4: The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B

M/S. FAYAJ INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. M/S. Fayaj Fayaj Infratech Infratech Pvt Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Dcit, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Ltd., C-56, 56, Baramunda Baramunda Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Housing Housing Board Board Colony, Colony, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcf 6797 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar K.K.Bal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11 /01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01 /01/2023 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 11.12.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. 0509/17-18 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

section 43B of the Act, the second is in respect of non-allowance of higher rate of depreciation in respect of heavy earth moving machinery used by the assessee in its business on construction of roads, the third issue being the disallowance at 100% as against 30

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

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)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of transportation charges and payments made to the contractors and hire charges. Ld CIT(A) had directed the disallowance at 30

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

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)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of transportation charges and payments made to the contractors and hire charges. Ld CIT(A) had directed the disallowance at 30

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

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)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of transportation charges and payments made to the contractors and hire charges. Ld CIT(A) had directed the disallowance at 30

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

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)

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of transportation charges and payments made to the contractors and hire charges. Ld CIT(A) had directed the disallowance at 30

MGM GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.370/Ctk/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Mgm Green Energy Limited, Vs Jcit, Range Rourkela, Rourkela 5-A, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aahcm 8472 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh A.K.Sabat & Sh B.K.Mahapatra, Cas राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1. Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.06.2019, In I.T.Appeal No.0388/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Assessee Has Taken As Many As Six Grounds Of Appeal, Relating To Various Additions/Disallowances Made To The Income Declared By The Assessee & Also Against The Adjustments Made In The Book Profit U/S.115Jb Of The Act. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- I) The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee, Which Is Arbitrary, Erroneous & Bad, Both In The Eyes Of Law. Ii) Disallowance Of Interest Expenses U/S.36(Iii) Of The Act At Rs.1,65,18,400/-; Iii) Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.14A Of The Act/Rule 8D Of It Rules At Rs.2,44,82,488/-; Iv) Addition Of Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.14A At Rs.2,44,82,488/- In The Book Profit As Computed U/S 115Jb; V) Addition/Disallowance Of Expenses U/S.115Jb Of The Act Under The Book Profits; Vi) Disallowance Of Differential Depreciation Of Rs.1,16,63,697/-

disallowance made u/s 14A is not includible in the book profit as computed u/s 115JB for charging MAT. 30. Per contra ld.CIT D/R relied upon the orders of lower authorities and submits that AO has not made any error and the adjustment was made in terms of clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section

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

disallowance, it is necessary to examine the\nsaid statute in detail to see whether the expenditure of Rs.\n129,42,25,780/ incurred by the assessee falls within its ambit Section\n37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation appended to it are\nreproduced as under\nSection 37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed

SMART LIFESTYLE MULTI TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.384/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 ) Smart Lifestyle Multitrade Pvt Ltd., Vs Ito, Ward 1(4), B/190, Bda Housing Colony, Bhubaneswar Baramunda, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aancs 4516 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.6.2025 Passed By Ld Jcit(A)-3, Chennai In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar- 1/10162/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty,Fs Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Real Estate. It Was The Submission That The Return Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & Assessment Came To Be Completed Us.143(3) Of The Act, In Which An Addition Of Rs.1,00,000/- Has Been Made In Respect Of Advertisement Charges Paid To Sister Concern. It Was The Submission That The Assessing Officer Had 2 आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.384/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 )

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which stood as on date, the disallowance is liable to restricted to 30

KONARK AQUATICS & EXPORT (P) LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act clearly shows that the amendment has been brought to remove hardship caused to the assessee. It must be understood that the disallowance of 100%, by the said amendment was restricted to 30

B.C. BHUYAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2014-15 B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle - Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, 1(1), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcb 3304 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /07/2023

30] This line of thinking is also supported by the interpretative process of enquiry. One has to determine whether each item of heterogeneous material comes under the definition of Plant mentioned in section 32 (1) or not. Then, if it is a plant one has to go to proviso to see whether any item of such Plant utilized

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.

30,68,95,380/- being against the principles of natural justice, being without/lack/in excess of jurisdiction, contrary to facts, unjustified, arbitrary, excessive, erroneous, bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable ought to have been quashed 2 3. Re-opening and reassessment a. That the learned CIT (Appeals) upholding the Order dated

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

disallowance, it is necessary to examine the\nsaid statute in detail to see whether the expenditure of Rs.\n129,42,25,780/ incurred by the assessee falls within its ambit Section\n37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation appended to it are\nreproduced as under\nSection 37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed

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

disallowance, it is necessary to examine the\nsaid statute in detail to see whether the expenditure of Rs.\n129,42,25,780/ incurred by the assessee falls within its ambit Section\n37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation appended to it are\nreproduced as under\nSection 37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed

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

disallowance, it is necessary to examine the\nsaid statute in detail to see whether the expenditure of Rs.\n129,42,25,780/ incurred by the assessee falls within its ambit Section\n37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and the Explanation appended to it are\nreproduced as under\nSection 37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST,CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AAYAKAR BHAWAN

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering