TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

7 | 27 ITA No.1 97/CTK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 12- 13 without recording dissatisfaction having regard to the accounts of the assessee about the claim of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred for earning exempt income, on assumption only, the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D of the Rules, it is not correct

JAKSONS AGENCIES,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 43B of the Act to the employee‟s share qua PF and ESI is un-sustainable. Consequently the disallowances to the tune of Rs. 94,33,788/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) stands deleted. 10 7

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.61/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S Orissa State Civil Bhubaneswar Supplies Corporation Ltd Unit-8,Gopabandhu Nagar Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaaco 2570 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

94,000/- in the profit and loss account. The assessee was asked to produce the details of payments made and TDS etc. It was noticed by the AO that there was no TDS made as per Section 194H of the Act. The assessee submitted that the payments to storage agents does not fall for TDS purpose as per Section 194H

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 43B of the Act disallowed by the AO dealt by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‘s own case and matter is pending before the Hon‘ble High Court. We rely on the order of ITAT in ITA Nos.196&91/CTK/2010, order dated 29.06.2012, para 16 to 23 at pages 10 to 13. The relevant observations

DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR vs. ALLIED INFRA SUPPLIERS, GANJAM

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is partly

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2012-2013 C.O.No.42/Ctk/2018

7,96,155.00 Canesh Chandra Pad BUJPP0318P 13,74,528.00 Ganeswar Sahu AEUPS7626A 22,97,000.00 Gitanjali Maharana BDTPM5259G 16,96,264.00 Gita Puri AIYPP1161B 26,86,792.00 Maa Santoshi Earth AAQFM9771N 5,38,000.00 Movers Manquli Dalai BZTPD5383G 15,14,586.00 Nasib Singh AOKPS4163G 2,00,000.00 Pawan Kumar BANPA7500C 16,40,852.00 Aqarwalla Pinalisha Parija AXJPP7012P

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/-

94,954) and compute the amount of disallowance of interest paid on this amount. Needless to say, at the time of making such computation and disallowance, an opportunity of being heard be allowed to the assessee. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. Ground No.(iii) : Disallowance of Expenses u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D 15. Brief facts of the case are that

DILLIP KUMAR NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.330 & 339/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) Shri Dilip Kumar Nayak, Vs. Jcit, Range-2, Bhubaneswar Plot No.270/A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khurda, Odisha-751016 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aahpn 0352 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

sections as set out supra. We observe from the submissions of the assessee that the assessee has paid interest to Non-Banking Financial Corporation which was required to be deducted TDS on such payments u/s.194A of the Act in respect of which he has produced Form No.26A as above mentioned of two parties of Rs.47,94,340/- out of total

ORISSA AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

7. I find that that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd.vs DCIT, (2014) 366 ITR 408 vide judgment dated 4.2.2014 held that the word contribution would mean in EPF and ESI Act refers to both employees and employers contribution to PF and, therefore, no disallowance is to be made under section

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7% to 8% commission. Ld CIT(A) rightly observed that from the statement of office bearers of donee organisation/school, it is seen that they have given generalised statement and nowhere the donation given by the assessee was refunded back to the assessee in cash. At the same time, we also note that the assessee has submitted certain statement before

INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7% to 8% commission. Ld CIT(A) rightly observed that from the statement of office bearers of donee organisation/school, it is seen that they have given generalised statement and nowhere the donation given by the assessee was refunded back to the assessee in cash. At the same time, we also note that the assessee has submitted certain statement before

BASUKINATH ROADWAYS PVT. LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

7 and 8] [In favour of revenue). " (b) Commissioner of Income-tax Central, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 52 taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad) : "Section 153A, read with section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (Scope of assessment) - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether Assessing Officer has power to reassess returns of assessee

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

7. Storage rent of various material 36,44,994 8. Others 32,94,851 Total 15,08,68,186 5. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions vis-à-vis explanation of the assessee and the findings of AO, allowed the claim on account of liability written back, holding tax and water charges totalling to Rs.3

MAHANADI METAL AND CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.496/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010 - 2011) M/S Mahanadi Metal & Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Chemicals Private Limited, T/4/26/Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaccm 4844 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Parimal Kumar Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A), Sambalpur, Dated 04.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Not Justified In Holding The Nature Of Expenses Of S/ 957144 Under The Head Commission Instead Of Contract Work. (Para 4). 2. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Understanding The Accounting Entry Of Discount Of Rs. 16,91,687 & Wrongly Treated The Bogus Sundry Creditor. (Para8) 3. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Not Justified In Rejection Of Additional Evidence & Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 999390 For Non-Submission Of Vat Return, (Para-9) 4. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Unjustified For Not Sending For Remand The Case & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2799978. 2 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income

94,280/-, however, the tax was paid u/s.115JB of the I.T.Act at a total income of Rs.9,28,813/-. The assessee company was engaged in manufacturing and sale of slurry explosives during the year. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee

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

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 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

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

disallowed. 11. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO on CSR activities. 12. Before us, ld. AR submitted that the expenses have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose and referred to page No.23 of the paper book where CSR expenses has been claimed and relied on the judicial decisions. Ld. AR further

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

7. ARSS HCIL Consortium JV 19,95,961 8. ARSS ANPR JV 4,84,262 9. Atlanta ARSS JV 245,94,111 10. Patel ARSS JV 48,07,028 Total: 5,17,74,383 12. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not deducted tax at source from the above interest payments as per the provisions of section 194A

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7. Such objects are clearly not connected with education. Section 10(23C)(vi) of the I.T. Act, 1961 stipulates that in order to qualify for approval of exemption, the following basic conditions should be satisfied: (i) It has to be a University or other educational Institution. (ii) It has to exist solely for educational purposes. (iii) It should

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

7. Such objects are clearly not connected with education. Section 10(23C)(vi) of the I.T. Act, 1961 stipulates that in order to qualify for approval of exemption, the following basic conditions should be satisfied: (i) It has to be a University or other educational Institution. (ii) It has to exist solely for educational purposes. (iii) It should