INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

1), section 194A(3)(i)(b) and section 194A(3)(viia)(b) of the Act, can take the benefit of general exemption provided to all co-operative societies from deduction of tax on payment of interest to members. The matter has been carried to judicial forums and in some cases a view has been taken that the provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

1), section 194A(3)(i)(b) and section 194A(3)(viia)(b) of the Act, can take the benefit of general exemption provided to all co-operative societies from deduction of tax on payment of interest to members. The matter has been carried to judicial forums and in some cases a view has been taken that the provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

1), section 194A(3)(i)(b) and section 194A(3)(viia)(b) of the Act, can take the benefit of general exemption provided to all co-operative societies from deduction of tax on payment of interest to members. The matter has been carried to judicial forums and in some cases a view has been taken that the provisions of section

BISWAJIT NAYAK,ROURKELA, ODISHA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.19/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Biswajit Nayak, Vs Acit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Qtr.No.B-174, Sector-1, Rourkela-769008 Pan No. :Aaqpn 2087 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/05/2024

disallowance of interest on car loan and depreciation” in para 5.0 where no satisfaction was recorded with regard to the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 5 Thus, it clearly evident from the assessment order that the AO was very much clear in his mind that the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act were

RAJESWAR THAKUR,BHAWANIPATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), SAMBALPUR

73,700/- for taxation purpose after deducting\nexpenses of Rs. 95,520/-. However, during the scrutiny proceedings, you failed to\nfurnish any evidence in support of your agricultural income like the quantity of crop\nproduced and sold, to whom sold, sale/purchase ledger, related bills and vouchers of\nagricultural product sold amount of sale proceed etc.\nSince, you failed to produce

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

disallowance as made by the AO is not on account of non-availability of evidences but because the expenses appear to be excessive. Clearly, the addition of Rs.97,961/- is nothing but an addition on presumption. Thus, no penalty in respect of addition of Rs.97,961/- is leviable and penalty as levied and confirmed

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

GANESH ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,CIVIL TOWNSHIP,ROURKELA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROURKELA CIRCLE,ROURKELA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.44 & 45 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016 16 & 2016-17

73 of the Income Tax Act. It was the submission that before the Assessing Officer and before the ld CIT(A), the assessee had specifically claimed that the same could not be treated as speculation loss in view of the provisions of section 43(5)(d) of the Act. It was the submission that in view of the provisions

GANESH ORES PRIVATE LIMITED,CIVIL TOWNSHIP ROURKELA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROURKELA CIRCLE,ROURKELA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.44 & 45 /Ctk/2024 24 Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016 16 & 2016-17

73 of the Income Tax Act. It was the submission that before the Assessing Officer and before the ld CIT(A), the assessee had specifically claimed that the same could not be treated as speculation loss in view of the provisions of section 43(5)(d) of the Act. It was the submission that in view of the provisions

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the claim of the appellant regarding Long Term Capital Gains by ignoring the evidences and submissions made by the appellant. 2 3. For that under the facts and in the circumstance of the case the amount of Rs.65,55,972/- should not have been treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 and should have been accepted as income from Long