M/S- RAWAT BALAJI (JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRILNCIPAL, CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act in respect of the development of eligible infrastructural facilities. 41 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 19. Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee was assigned full responsibility to do all acts for execution and completion of work right from the beginning till handing over of the project to the contractee. The contract

M/S- SBEP-GRIL(JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act in respect of the development of eligible infrastructural facilities. 41 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 19. Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee was assigned full responsibility to do all acts for execution and completion of work right from the beginning till handing over of the project to the contractee. The contract

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

147 is clearly invalid." 8. Ld D.R. relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 9., Ld A.R. on the other hand submitted that after passing of the original order u/s.143(3) on 23.11.2010, no fresh material came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, which could trigger the proceedings of reassessment by issue of notice u/s

L N FINANCE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,TARAPUR vs. ITO, WARD PARADEEP, PARADEEP

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 L.N.Finance Vs. Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Society Paradeep Ward, Limited, Tarapur, Paradeep, Orissa Raghunathpur, Jagatsinghpur 754132, Orissa Pan/Gir No.Aabal0759R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Ca Revenue By: Shri. S.C Mothanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2024

147 r.w.s 144 is liable to be set aside. GROUND NO. - 5 In the alternative the following grounds of Appeal may be considered. For that, on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not allowing the deduction u/s 80P when the return is filed against the notice u/s

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

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 under section 195(1) of the Act. 1.4 That on facts and circumstances

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

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 under section 195(1) of the Act. 1.4 That on facts and circumstances

ITO, KHURDA vs. BULARAM DALAI, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s. 147 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 2 LTD. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in cancelling the reassessment proceeding for the assessment year 2009-10 which was initiated

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

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said

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

deduction provision. Coupled with this, Mr. Tulsiyan pointed out that it was only in the AY 2001-02 that both of its trustees (supra) had sold lands to the assessee a collector rate(s) only i.e. as per the fair valuation adopted by the SRO Ganjam District in Odisha. No benefit or advantage accrued therefore in favour of the said