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

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

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

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 & justice rendered

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

26] P a g e 37 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (b). EVEN A RIGHT DECISION IN A WRONG FORUM IS ‘NO DECISION- NO EXISTENCE IN THE EYES OF LAW- IS A NULITY’: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Pandurang v. State of Maharastra AIR 1987 SC 535” held as under:- “When a matter

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

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

68,377 2,39,41,39,182 Finance and Misc Expenditure 1,15,86,87,910 90,85,05,584 1,15,06,34,621 (b) 3,27,65,87,554 3,03,80,73,961 3,54,47,73,803 Total Revenue Expenditure(a+b) Capital Expenditure Application as per Schedule -3, Fixed

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

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

68,377 2,39,41,39,182 Finance and Misc Expenditure 1,15,86,87,910 90,85,05,584 1,15,06,34,621 (b) 3,27,65,87,554 3,03,80,73,961 3,54,47,73,803 Total Revenue Expenditure(a+b) Capital Expenditure Application as per Schedule -3, Fixed

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

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

68,377 2,39,41,39,182 Finance and Misc Expenditure 1,15,86,87,910 90,85,05,584 1,15,06,34,621 (b) 3,27,65,87,554 3,03,80,73,961 3,54,47,73,803 Total Revenue Expenditure(a+b) Capital Expenditure Application as per Schedule -3, Fixed

SRI SUKHAMAYA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2013-14 Sri Sukhmaya Das, Sri Sukhmaya Das, At-N/3/69, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), 3(1), Irc Irc Village, Village, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aeppd 2993 A Aeppd 2993 A (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /06/20 /2021 O R D E R

iii) Smt. Madhu Raitani vs ACIT, 45 SOT 231 (Gau)™ iv) Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitkar vs ITO, 73 Taxman.com 68. v) Mehul vs Vyas vs ITO, 80 Taxman.com 311 vi) Amitabh Bansal vs ITO, 175 ITD 401 (Del) vii) CIT vs Bhaichand H Gandhi, (1983) 53 company cases 400 (Bom) 10. Ld DR submitted that the assessee has failed miserably

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

68,314/- only and not Rs. 53,48,75,077/- or Rs. 49,76,91,623/-. 3.5 In view of the above facts it is prayed before the Hon’ble Bench that there have been inconsistencies in the submissions made by the appellant before this Hon’ble Bench and those made before the Ld. CIT(A). It is settled principle

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

III. The Hon'ble SMC Bench, Bangalore ITA No.68/BNG/2023 relying upon the principles of different Benches the Hon'ble Bench as well as the Hon'ble High Court in the case of AGSON Global Pvt. Ltd Vrs. ACIT 325 CTR 001 deleted the additions on the .Grounds of cash deposits during demonization period and the Hon'ble Bench considering

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

iii) Interest payment on deposits other than time deposit by a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking other than those mentioned in section 194A(3)(viia)(a) of the Act. [Section 194A(3)(viia)(b) of the Act] Therefore, as per the provisions of section 194A(1) read with provisions of sections 194A

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

iii) Interest payment on deposits other than time deposit by a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking other than those mentioned in section 194A(3)(viia)(a) of the Act. [Section 194A(3)(viia)(b) of the Act] Therefore, as per the provisions of section 194A(1) read with provisions of sections 194A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

iii) Interest payment on deposits other than time deposit by a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking other than those mentioned in section 194A(3)(viia)(a) of the Act. [Section 194A(3)(viia)(b) of the Act] Therefore, as per the provisions of section 194A(1) read with provisions of sections 194A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

iii) Interest payment on deposits other than time deposit by a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking other than those mentioned in section 194A(3)(viia)(a) of the Act. [Section 194A(3)(viia)(b) of the Act] Therefore, as per the provisions of section 194A(1) read with provisions of sections 194A

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

iii) Interest payment on deposits other than time deposit by a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking other than those mentioned in section 194A(3)(viia)(a) of the Act. [Section 194A(3)(viia)(b) of the Act] Therefore, as per the provisions of section 194A(1) read with provisions of sections 194A

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

iii) CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd., 366 ITR (P&H) 167 iv) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpakak Sahakari Sangh ltd., 356 ITR (Raj)163. He also submitted that in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 2008-09, on similar facts, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1