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

54,656 5. Before the AO, since the assessee could not explain the reasons for non-deposit before due date of filing the return of income, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. On appeal before the ld CIT(A), the assessee explained that due to economic slowdown of infrastructure industry

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.

Section 6 of the MMDR Act. 1957, Environment Impact Assessment notification dated 27.01.1994 (EIA Notification, 1994) issued by MoEF) under Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and circular dated 25.4.2005 of MoEF issued in continuation to Circular dated 28.10.2004 being on mis- appreciation/misconstruing of the facts is incorrect, arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SMT. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

TATA STEEL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO TATA STEEL LONG PRODUCTS LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Tata Steel Ltd. ( Tata Steel Ltd. (Successor To Vs. Asst. Commis Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tata Steel Long Products Ltd. Tata Steel Long Products Ltd.), Tax-, Circle Circle- Rourkela Bileipada, Joda, Keonjhar Bileipada, Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaact 2803 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Shreya Loyalka, Ca : Ms Shreya Loyalka, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowance of CSR expenditure of Rs.1,29,54,170/-. In first appeal filed by the assessee against the reassessment order so passed, ld. CIT(A) has allowed part relief. Thus the present appeal is filed by the assessee before us. 8. Before us the ld. AR requested to take up the additional grounds of appeals No.1015 first and contended that

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, 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 (3) of Section 14A of the Act. Ld A.R also submitted that the appellant has sufficient funds in her capital account and total investment in Mutual funds, share, deposit and payment to insurance is less than the amount of capital, therefore, there is no possibility or chance of investment of borrowed funds in shares, Mutual Funds and deposit, therefore

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 (3) of Section 14A of the Act. Ld A.R also submitted that the appellant has sufficient funds in her capital account and total investment in Mutual funds, share, deposit and payment to insurance is less than the amount of capital, therefore, there is no possibility or chance of investment of borrowed funds in shares, Mutual Funds and deposit, therefore

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 37 of IT Act, 1961 Prayer It is therefore humbly prayed that the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is not justified in sustaining the disallowance of payment made to the raising contractor. Hence the additions being illegal and uncalled for should be quashed for which the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever remain grateful'. 8. Ld. AR further

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 37 of IT Act, 1961 Prayer It is therefore humbly prayed that the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is not justified in sustaining the disallowance of payment made to the raising contractor. Hence the additions being illegal and uncalled for should be quashed for which the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever remain grateful'. 8. Ld. AR further