M/S. L.A.DEVELOPERS,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-2009 2009 M/S. M/S. L.A.Developers, L.A.Developers, Hig Hig-47, Vs. Cit, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Jayadev Jayadev Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aacfl 6157 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 /6/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02 / /6/2022 O R D E R

deduction for such assessment year”. It also used the words “ assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation

THE BERHAMPUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

deduction. Hence, the provision made for Rs.30,50,000/- is required to be added to the total income." The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

deductions on account of Chapter VIA and loss under the head house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

deductions on account of Chapter VIA and loss under the head house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

deductions on account of Chapter VIA and loss under the head house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

deductions on account of Chapter VIA and loss under the head house property is duly reflected in such Form 16, disallowed by the AO, and reassessed

INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOY LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act without appreciating that the AO failed to point out how payments made to various non-resident parties were chargeable to tax in India on which tax was deductible

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act without appreciating that the AO failed to point out how payments made to various non-resident parties were chargeable to tax in India on which tax was deductible

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment and which are in force on the date of initiation of the search or making of the requisition. The assessee was engaged in the operation of a container freight station. It claimed deduction

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment and which are in force on the date of initiation of the search or making of the requisition. The assessee was engaged in the operation of a container freight station. It claimed deduction

RABINDRA KUMAR MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.300/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Rabindra Kumar Mohanty, Vs Ito, Ward-2(2), C/O Dr. Basudev Mishra, Bhubaneswar Plot No.3C/1, 1St Floor, Near Raj Bhawan Square, Unit-8, Bhubaneswar- 751012 Pan No. : Abxpm 8506 B (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate By िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date : 21/12/2021 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 22.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. This Appeal Itano.300/Ctk/2016 Was Dismissed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.08.2017 On Account Of Non- Appearance On The Part Of The Assessee. Thereafter The Assessee Took The Matter Before The Hon’Ble High Court & The Hon’Ble High Court In W.P.(C) No.2487 Of 2019, Vide

reassessment proceedings carried out by the Ld. AO based on the information that transportation receipts worth of Rs. 66,43,421/- were not accounted for by the assessee in the books of account even though the tax was deducted

M/S. DISCOVERTURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

deduction u/s.10A of P a g e 1 | 4 ITA Nos.125 & 126 /CTK/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-2011 the Act claimed by the assessee and (ii) that no assessment order having been passed originally on the return filed by the assessee, the reassessment

M/S. DISCOVERTURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

deduction u/s.10A of P a g e 1 | 4 ITA Nos.125 & 126 /CTK/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-2011 the Act claimed by the assessee and (ii) that no assessment order having been passed originally on the return filed by the assessee, the reassessment

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs. M/S Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, In Appeal No.0403/2012-13, Dated 23.05.2013, Passed U/S.147/143(3)/250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether The Learned First Appellate Authority Was Justified In Relying On Writ Cases Ignoring The Fact That Specific Findings In Writ-Petitions Can Not Be Straightaway Applied To Other Cases. 2. Whether The Learned Appellate Authority Was Justified To Hold That There Is Change In Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Regarding Admissibility / Inadmissibility Of Expenditure While Proceeding U/S.147 Of The 1.T. Act,1961 As Compared To His Findings In The Original Assessment Order. 3. Whether The Ld. First Appellate Authority Was Justified To Delete The Disallowance Of Rs.696.10 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer Towards 'Prior Period Expenses', Totally Ignoring The Findings Of The Assessing Officer. 4. Whether The Learned First Appellate Authority Was Justified To Delete The Disallowance Of Rs.631.34 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer Towards `Unpaid Statutory Liability' Under Section 43B Of The I.T. Act,1961, Totally Ignoring The Findings Of The Assessing Officer.

deduction of TDS of IICM charges, ,ld. AR submitted that the amount was paid to its holding company i.e. Coal India Ltd. and they have disclosed this income in their returns and since they have paid the taxes provisions are not applicable. We found that the provisions of reassessment

HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011

reassessment order u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act dated 30.3.2016 and submitted that in this appeal, the assessee raised 13 grounds including ground raised by the assessee in earlier appeal i.e. I.T. Appeal No.0239/15-16 against the original assessment order but ld CIT(A) only decided Ground No.11 pertaining to disallowance of deduction

M/S BERHAMPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. ITO, BERHAMPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

deduction etc. It may be apparent and obvious to hold that the Assessing Officer would not have gone into the said question or applied his mind. However, this would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” 27. Therefore, in the absence of any fresh material, the reappraisal of same material to initiate reassessment

M/S. DAZZLE BEVERAGES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2005-06

reassessment order u/s.143(3)/147 of the Act vide dated 6.11.2009, wherein, disallowance of Rs.7,40,779/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been made. The payments were made to the labour sardars Shri S.N.Pothal & Sri R.K.Mohanty of Rs.3,42,343/- and Rs.3,98,436/-, respectively towards labour payments. Since, no tax was deduction

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

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

deduction u/s.80P of the I.T.Act. 3. That the accounts of the assessee is statutorily audited by the auditors appointed by National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (for short "NABARD") and further its activities including maintenance of records, documents vouchers are regulated/monitored and inspected by (for short "NABARD / Reserve Bank of India("RBI"). 4. That for the Assessment Year