KALINGA INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY (KIIT),BHUBANESWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

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 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit Technology (Kiit), Hyderabad Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 7 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

68 or 69 at the rate of 30% and the amount of income tax chargeable on the remaining income determined under normal provisions..” 6. The Ld CIT(E) held that the AO has failed to make proper enquires on the above issues before passing the assessment order, therefore, the order passed u/s.143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

68 or not.... Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., wherein, it was stated that bank statement is not sufficient enough to discharge the burden. Regarding the failure to accord

KUSUM POWERMET (P) LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year :2007-08

68,158/- should be carried forward. These issues arise out of the order u/s.l53A and the impugned appeal is against the order u/s. 154 which has been decided at para 3.1 of this order. In view of the same, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 4. During the course of hearing, it was pointed

ODISHA BRIDGE & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 154. 2. At the time of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee filed an adjournment petition seeking adjournment, however, considering facts of the case, we reject the adjournment petition and appeal is heard on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a Govt. of Odisha undertaking, engaged in the business

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68 of the paper book. No additions have been made on account of share application money which clearly means that sources of the share capital were found to be genuine. It was pleaded by learned counsel for the assessee that even Chartered Accountant who has conducted the audit never pointed out any objection for receipt of share application money

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68 of the paper book. No additions have been made on account of share application money which clearly means that sources of the share capital were found to be genuine. It was pleaded by learned counsel for the assessee that even Chartered Accountant who has conducted the audit never pointed out any objection for receipt of share application money

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

section 154 of the Income Tax Act. In Manoj Kumar Nayak’s judgment the Hon’ble ITAT has held that the mistake in the residential status of the appellant is mistake apparent from record and accordingly, the Hon’ble ITAT has directed the AO to rectify the mistake after verification. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the relied upon

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

154 of the Act than the AO wanted details of acquisition and proof of payment of STT. I therefore set aside the order of CITTA) and remand the question of exemption of Long Term Gains 10(38) of the Act to the 10 for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to file necessary evidences before the AO to substantiate

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

154 of the Act than the AO wanted details of acquisition and proof of payment of STT. I therefore set aside the order of CITTA) and remand the question of exemption of Long Term Gains 10(38) of the Act to the 10 for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to file necessary evidences before the AO to substantiate

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

154 of the Act than the AO wanted details of acquisition and proof of payment of STT. I therefore set aside the order of CITTA) and remand the question of exemption of Long Term Gains 10(38) of the Act to the 10 for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to file necessary evidences before the AO to substantiate

SUREKHA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

section 263 of the Act. Ld A.R. has placed reliance on the following judgments: P a g e 7 | 20 ITA No.2 07/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 13- 14 i) CIT vs Reita Biscuits Co.(P) Ltd., 309 ITR 154 (P&H) ii) DIT vs Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del) iii) Nanda Kishore Agarwalla

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRI JAGANNATH PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-2014

68,452/- is the construction cost incurred during F.Y 2012-13 and has been correctly taken to WlP-sheet(enclosed). So this sum is related to construction of apartment/flats, but not plots. As found from profit & loss accounts figures of plots & flats have been shown separately. Ld A.O has wrongly included it in cost of plots. The appellant has removed

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

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

68,814=00 viii Miscellaneous Income 2,08,910=00 Total 1,82,20,688=00 SI No Particulars of Expenditure Amount (in Rs) i Staff payments 59,38,907=80 ii Admn. & General Expenses 35,38,150=82 iii Repair & Maintenance 2,58,281=98 iv Depreciation 49,31,893=91 V Other expenses 15,06,960=90 Total

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

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

SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD,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

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- 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

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

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

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

68. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that there is no clarity regarding change in accounting method and not clear whether repairs expenses were charged to P&L account and hence, upheld the addition. 69. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee