INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

e 22 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela though the nomenclature is punitive charges, it is not paid for infraction of any law and overloading is a normal feature of shipment. The above explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable to the AO and he, accordingly disallowed Rs.34,25,485/- and added the same

ACIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

e 22 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela though the nomenclature is punitive charges, it is not paid for infraction of any law and overloading is a normal feature of shipment. The above explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable to the AO and he, accordingly disallowed Rs.34,25,485/- and added the same

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

22. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. " F.B) Further we may rely upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case "Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 283 (Cal.HC)" where it was held as under: "Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Income-tax authorities Power to transfer cases Assessment years

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 68 which could be referred to as its undisclosed income”. He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of 221 ITR 239 (All), wherein, it has been held that “whether where deposits had been made by partners on very first day when partnership firm came into existence, onus

TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

22,69,012/-). Accordingly, the aggregate of the above (i + ii +iii) comes to Rs.62,61,345/-, which is treated as expenditure in relation to income not forming part of total income. Thus, the same is disallowed U/s.14A of the I. T. Act, 1961.” 10. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

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

68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident is an amount which is not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee may not have made an application under section 18(3B) [now section 195(2)]. The application

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

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

SRIMANTA KUMAR TRIPATHY,JAJPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of revenue in ITA No

E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM: These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue for the assessment year 2010-2011 against the order of CIT(A), Cuttack, in I.T.Appeal No.0107/2013-14, dated 29.09.2014, passed u/s.143(3) & 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals are common and interrelated

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK vs. SRIMANTA KUMAR TRIPATHY, JAJPUR

In the result, appeal of revenue in ITA No

E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM: These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue for the assessment year 2010-2011 against the order of CIT(A), Cuttack, in I.T.Appeal No.0107/2013-14, dated 29.09.2014, passed u/s.143(3) & 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals are common and interrelated

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

section 68, there is requirement of presence of books of accounts, which is not there in the case of appellant. 5. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and or rescind all or any of the Grounds of Appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessity so arises. The Appeal may be allowed

MR. BICHITRANANDA ROUT,SHANKARPUR, CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from as source, which has already been taxed." The assessee

SUBHALAXMI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,NAYAGARH vs. JCIT, RAMGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

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

E R Per N.S.Saini, AM The cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)- 3, Bhubaneswar dated 5.1.2016 for the assessment year 2011-2012 and the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 1.2.2016 of the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar

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

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

e) Draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other, (b) Freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs." Placing reliance on this

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

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

e) Draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other, (b) Freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs." Placing reliance on this

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

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

e) Draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other, (b) Freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs." Placing reliance on this

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBNAESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.343/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Industrial Development Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Limited (Idcol), Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Order Of Assessment As Well As Appeal Is Against Law, Weight Of Evidences & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Most Arbitrarily Disallowed Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, U/S 14A Against The Exempted Income Of Rs.5,50,000/-, Being Dividend Received From Associate Companies In Routine Manner, Without Properly Recording The Dissatisfaction Of The Assessing Officer 3. The Interest On Income Tax Refund Of Rs.8,04,924/-, Which Is Adjusted Against Demand, Was Not Properly Intimated For Which The Same Is Not Recognized As Income. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer Added Rs.6,66,721/-, As Interest On Fixed Deposit Based On The Comment Of The Auditor, Which Is Recognized In Subsequent Assessment Year. 5. The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Adding, Amount Disallowed U/S 14A, Of Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, Rs.8,04,924/-, On Account Of Income

e, f, g of Report and Accounts) d. Re-computation of Deemed total income u/s 115JB. The Learned Assessing Officer, whatever addition made is added to Book Profit, which is against the provision contains in section 115JB. The appellant is a government corporation and prepares its account as per schedule - III, to the Companies Act 2013. The account

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

68,69,70,71 & ITA n26/WK/2011 dated 22.03.201 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the orders of ld CIT(A)2, Bhubaneswar for AY 2001-02 to AY 2007-08 allowing appeals of the appellant. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-office wrote a letter to the AO on 20.05.2013 to verify any component of capitation fees as per Section 2

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

68,69,70,71 & ITA n26/WK/2011 dated 22.03.201 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the orders of ld CIT(A)2, Bhubaneswar for AY 2001-02 to AY 2007-08 allowing appeals of the appellant. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-office wrote a letter to the AO on 20.05.2013 to verify any component of capitation fees as per Section 2

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

68,69,70,71 & ITA n26/WK/2011 dated 22.03.201 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the orders of ld CIT(A)2, Bhubaneswar for AY 2001-02 to AY 2007-08 allowing appeals of the appellant. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-office wrote a letter to the AO on 20.05.2013 to verify any component of capitation fees as per Section 2