ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

section 145 (3) and order of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd(supra), he cannot proceed further without rejecting Books of Account to make any addition to the profit derived, by taking a provisional costing figure, submitted by the appellant herself before the IBM. 20. We note that the assessee being raising the Iron Ore from

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.379/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Industrial Development Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) M/S Industrial Development Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra,Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 15.06.2017 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhubaneswar, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita

391 ITR 127 (P&H) HC and Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. 245 ITR 428( Delhi), it is held that the provision towards pay revision debited to the P&L Account is an ascertained liability crystallized in the year under appeal and hence it is an admissible deduction. This ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed.” From the above observations

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.379/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Industrial Development Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009 - 2010) M/S Industrial Development Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra,Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 15.06.2017 Passed By The Cit(A)-3, Bhubaneswar, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita

391 ITR 127 (P&H) HC and Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. 245 ITR 428( Delhi), it is held that the provision towards pay revision debited to the P&L Account is an ascertained liability crystallized in the year under appeal and hence it is an admissible deduction. This ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed.” From the above observations

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed this claim, holding that the expenditure was purely a provision against unascertained liability and said provision could not be claimed as expenditure for the year under reference. The A.O. held that neither the liability in question had accrued nor crystallized during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) after careful consideration of the issue in question, also held that

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed this claim, holding that the expenditure was purely a provision against unascertained liability and said provision could not be claimed as expenditure for the year under reference. The A.O. held that neither the liability in question had accrued nor crystallized during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) after careful consideration of the issue in question, also held that

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed this claim, holding that the expenditure was purely a provision against unascertained liability and said provision could not be claimed as expenditure for the year under reference. The A.O. held that neither the liability in question had accrued nor crystallized during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) after careful consideration of the issue in question, also held that

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed this claim, holding that the expenditure was purely a provision against unascertained liability and said provision could not be claimed as expenditure for the year under reference. The A.O. held that neither the liability in question had accrued nor crystallized during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) after careful consideration of the issue in question, also held that

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed this claim, holding that the expenditure was purely a provision against unascertained liability and said provision could not be claimed as expenditure for the year under reference. The A.O. held that neither the liability in question had accrued nor crystallized during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) after careful consideration of the issue in question, also held that

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed this claim, holding that the expenditure was purely a provision against unascertained liability and said provision could not be claimed as expenditure for the year under reference. The A.O. held that neither the liability in question had accrued nor crystallized during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) after careful consideration of the issue in question, also held that

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed this claim, holding that the expenditure was purely a provision against unascertained liability and said provision could not be claimed as expenditure for the year under reference. The A.O. held that neither the liability in question had accrued nor crystallized during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) after careful consideration of the issue in question, also held that

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed this claim, holding that the expenditure was purely a provision against unascertained liability and said provision could not be claimed as expenditure for the year under reference. The A.O. held that neither the liability in question had accrued nor crystallized during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) after careful consideration of the issue in question, also held that

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed this claim, holding that the expenditure was purely a provision against unascertained liability and said provision could not be claimed as expenditure for the year under reference. The A.O. held that neither the liability in question had accrued nor crystallized during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) after careful consideration of the issue in question, also held that

ADITYA MOHAPATRA,DHENKANAL vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.155/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Sri Aditya Mohapatra, Vs. Pr.Cit-2, Bhubaneswar Prop.: Orissa Motors, Kujakanta, Main Road, Dhenkanal. Pan No. : Aaacl 6593 N (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Damodar Pati, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam,Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/09/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Act By The Pr.Cit-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 21.03.2016 For The A.Y.2012-2013. 2. Earlier This Appeal Was Disposed Off By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29.08.2017. Thereafter The Assessee Challenged The Order Of The Tribunal Before The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court & The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Order Dated 21.03.2018 Passed In W.P.(C)No.22608 Of 2017 Set Aside The Order Of The Tribunal To Pass Fresh Order Directing The Assessee To File The Documents As He Wants. Accordingly, The Appeal Of The Assessee Restored To Its Original Number & Finally Heard With The Consent Of Both The Parties.

Section 194H of the Act for making deduction but the AO did not examine the issue, therefore, the Pr.CIT held that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, he directed the AO to make de novo assessment following the directions as given in the revisonal order. 7. Aggrieved by the order