MJSJ COAL LIMITED,ANGUL vs. ITO, WARD-2, DHENKANAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

251) 7- CIT Vs NTPC Sail Power Co. Ltd. ITS 1238/2011 HC Delhi 8- CIT v. Govinda Choudhury and Sons (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) 9- CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. (2011)337ITR 389 (Del) 10- Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Del) 1 l-Mazagaon Dock Ltd v. CIT/Excess Profits

MJSJ COAL LIMITED,ANGUL vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHUBANESWAR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

251) 7- CIT Vs NTPC Sail Power Co. Ltd. ITS 1238/2011 HC Delhi 8- CIT v. Govinda Choudhury and Sons (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) 9- CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. (2011)337ITR 389 (Del) 10- Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Del) 1 l-Mazagaon Dock Ltd v. CIT/Excess Profits

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

house rent recovered from the employees from the total receipts and after allowing pro-rata expenditure, determined revised surplus at Rs.17,21,344/-. The CIT(A) also directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation after verifying the assessee's correct claim of depreciation. Accordingly, the assessee was requested to submit details regarding its claim of depreciation vide letter issued dated

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

property. It was the submission that the period of construction of house would also have to be considered. P a g e 4 | 10 ITA Nos.189 & 190/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 8. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the present facts clearly shows that in para 7.1 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has denied

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

property. It was the submission that the period of construction of house would also have to be considered. P a g e 4 | 10 ITA Nos.189 & 190/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 8. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the present facts clearly shows that in para 7.1 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has denied

RAJ KISHORE PRUSTY,KENDRAPARA vs. PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Atdpp 8328 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca D.Parida, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 For The Assessment Year .2016-17. 17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue is not an expression