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

disallowance of Rs. 47,61,689/- made u/s. 14A r.w.r 80 being expenses incurred for earning exempt dividend income without appreciating the fact that assessee's own interest free funds was exceeding the investment made for earning exempted income and in similar facts disallowances made in the assessment orders for the A.Y's. 2012-13 & 2013-14 was deleted

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

SUKANTI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,SONEPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 57 of the Act, the expenses incurred for earning of the income is allowable while computing the taxable income. It was also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that in the case of the assessee, the gross receipts of Sukanti International School and Sukanti +3 Degree College are below Rs. one Crore and therefore, the income of these institutions

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

SARASWATI SISHU MANDIR,DHENKANAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTDEPARTMENT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 57 of the Act and noted that the assessee had not given any details to prove the genuineness of the claim of expenses of Rs. 2,21,54,696/-. Therefore, the Ld. AO disallowed

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

section 35D. In any case, there is nothing on record to establish, or even suggest, that expenses incurred on removal of overburden at the surface level, which were capital expenditure in nature, have been claimed as revenue deduction on the strength of coal mining in another piece of land within that coal mine. 11 ITA Nos.14-17&41/CTK/2023 ITA Nos.70-73&147/CTK/2023

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,BURLA, SAMBALPUR. vs. DCIT CIRCLE2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

section 35D. In any case, there is nothing on record to establish, or even suggest, that expenses incurred on removal of overburden at the surface level, which were capital expenditure in nature, have been claimed as revenue deduction on the strength of coal mining in another piece of land within that coal mine. 11 ITA Nos.14-17&41/CTK/2023 ITA Nos.70-73&147/CTK/2023

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PHULBANI vs. NARSINGH DASH AGRAWALA AND SONS, PHULBANI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

57,000 was raised vide CD & CR No.lll-03/2015-16. Section 143(3) provides that AOs have to determine and assess the income correctly. Different types of claims together with accounts, records and all documents enclosed with the return are required to be examined in details in every scrutiny assessment. CBDT has also issued instructions from time to time

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 80IA(4) of the Act the enterprises which is eligible for deduction is the “joint venture firm” and not any of the constituent as has been claimed by the assesee. 27. In the last, it is observed that in the case of M/s Rawat-Balaji-JV and M/s SBEPL-GRIL-JV in A.Y.2014-2015, the department proposed

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

KANDOI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed. From the perusal of the profit and loss account, we find that depreciation on factory building at Rs.181529/- is not allowable as business expenses. With regard to interest expenses claimed by assessee, ld. PCIT directed the AO to verify whether the same could be allowed u/s 57 of the Act against the interest income which is directed

MANORANJAN DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), BHUBANESWAR

57,380/- and tried to use this source for cost of construction, which cannot\nbe accepted.\n6.2.2) With regard to referring the matter to Valuation Cell, the AO has not disputed\nthe cost of construction as mentioned in the Sale Deed. In fact, the AO asked to\nexplain the sources for the construction undertaken by the appellant as a developer