BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

d) The power to determine the income vests in the Assessing Officer exercising the quasi-judicial function and it is in violation of principle of quasi-judicial function that can render the assessment order invalid. The act of Administrative Approval by Supervisory officer does not take away the quasi-judicial powers which still vests in AO and therefore Administrative

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

d) The power to determine the income vests in the Assessing Officer exercising the quasi-judicial function and it is in violation of principle of quasi-judicial function that can render the assessment order invalid. The act of Administrative Approval by Supervisory officer does not take away the quasi-judicial powers which still vests in AO and therefore Administrative

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT ,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

d) The power to determine the income vests in the Assessing Officer exercising the quasi-judicial function and it is in violation of principle of quasi-judicial function that can render the assessment order invalid. The act of Administrative Approval by Supervisory officer does not take away the quasi-judicial powers which still vests in AO and therefore Administrative

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

d) The power to determine the income vests in the Assessing Officer exercising the quasi-judicial function and it is in violation of principle of quasi-judicial function that can render the assessment order invalid. The act of Administrative Approval by Supervisory officer does not take away the quasi-judicial powers which still vests in AO and therefore Administrative

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

d) The power to determine the income vests in the Assessing Officer exercising the quasi-judicial function and it is in violation of principle of quasi-judicial function that can render the assessment order invalid. The act of Administrative Approval by Supervisory officer does not take away the quasi-judicial powers which still vests in AO and therefore Administrative

BIBHUDUTTA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ASST.CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.76 To 81/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-2008 To 2012-2013) Bibhudutta Panda, Vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.73 & 74, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Adapp 6398 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

d) The power to determine the income vests in the Assessing Officer exercising the quasi-judicial function and it is in violation of principle of quasi-judicial function that can render the assessment order invalid. The act of Administrative Approval by Supervisory officer does not take away the quasi-judicial powers which still vests in AO and therefore Administrative

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

D Shah takes effect from 1st April, 2021 i.e AY 2021-22 and subsequent assessment year and if the remittance of PF/ESI Employees‟ Contribution is not made within the time prescribed by the PF/ESI Act then the remittance cannot be allowed as a deduction which is prospective in operation. Whereas according to Ld. CIT(A), the amendment brought

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/-

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.] [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

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

22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, ii. The assessee is a Scheduled Bank iii. The assessee is not a "co-operative bank" as per Explanation to section 80P of the I.T. Act r.w. Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and C.O. No. 13/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year:20 08- 09 section 2(d) & 2

LN HOTA & COMPANY,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

D E R Per Bench These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of CIT(A)-Cuttack, for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000- 2001, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07, in respect of assessments under section 143(3) and 143(3)/147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2

BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,CUTTACK vs. ITO, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

D E R Per Bench These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of CIT(A)-Cuttack, for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000- 2001, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07, in respect of assessments under section 143(3) and 143(3)/147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the revision order u/s.263 of the Act passed by the Pr.CIT(Central), Visakhapatnam, dated 20.03.2018. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT (Central) has erred

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the revision order u/s.263 of the Act passed by the Pr.CIT(Central), Visakhapatnam, dated 20.03.2018. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT (Central) has erred

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

22,54,379/-, totalling to Rs. 34,24,272/-. and also disallowed excess claim of depreciation on laboratory equipments of Rs. :- 41 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 2,58,180/-, furniture of Rs. 23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

22,54,379/-, totalling to Rs. 34,24,272/-. and also disallowed excess claim of depreciation on laboratory equipments of Rs. :- 41 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 2,58,180/-, furniture of Rs. 23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

22,54,379/-, totalling to Rs. 34,24,272/-. and also disallowed excess claim of depreciation on laboratory equipments of Rs. :- 41 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 2,58,180/-, furniture of Rs. 23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

22,54,379/-, totalling to Rs. 34,24,272/-. and also disallowed excess claim of depreciation on laboratory equipments of Rs. :- 41 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 2,58,180/-, furniture of Rs. 23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

22,54,379/-, totalling to Rs. 34,24,272/-. and also disallowed excess claim of depreciation on laboratory equipments of Rs. :- 41 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 2,58,180/-, furniture of Rs. 23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal

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

22,54,379/-, totalling to Rs. 34,24,272/-. and also disallowed excess claim of depreciation on laboratory equipments of Rs. :- 41 -: ITA No. 368/CTK/2019 and others Roland Educational & Charitable Trust, Berahampur 2,58,180/-, furniture of Rs. 23,734/- and computers of Rs. 1,34,580/- totalling to Rs. 3,94,494/- 11. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal