KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

section 68 of the Act. It was the submission that the assessee had initially taken the loans as interest free but subsequently, as the assessee was unable to repay the loans immediately, the assessee had paid P a g e 2 | 12 Assessment Year : 2017-18 interest on the same and had also deducted TDS on the interest payments

B.C. BHUYAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2014-15 B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle - Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, 1(1), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcb 3304 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /07/2023

32(1)(ii) of the Act.” 8. In these circumstances, following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of S.Vijaya Kumar (supra) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Alagendran Finance Ltd(supra), as each of the individual units of the shuttering materials

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors

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

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including the deficient enquiry conducted

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

section 32(1) and, therefore, there is no question of allowing depreciation on said rights. 46. We find that the assessee has raised these additional grounds as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in W.P (C) No.24 of 2013 and Misc. Case No.5716 of 2013 order dated 20.3.2013. In view of above, we admit

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

68 of the income tax act in the instant case is not reasonable and uncalled-for. 6.6 In view of the above discussion, we found merit in contention of the assessee and, accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee. 7 7. Ground 2 relates to disallowance of statutory dues

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

32,507/- made under Section 2 (24)(x) read with Section 36(l)(va) of the Income-tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in holding that the provision for gratuity was not made towards approved gratuity fund and that the gratuity has not become payable during

SRI AMITABH KAR,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

section 68 of the Act and allow this part of ground of appeal of the assessee. Asse ssment Year :20 11- 12 13. In Ground No.2(2) of the appeal, the grievance is that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,32

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND ADVANCE GLOBAL EXCELLENCE (IMAGE),BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Me, Ld A.R. Of The Assessee Filed Assessment Orders For The Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-2010 Passed

Section 32, he held that the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation on leased assets and added Rs.7,68

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

Section 37(1) of the Act will not be applicable. We therefore uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss ground no.2 raised by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13. P a g e 26 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela 33. Ground No.3 of appeal for the assessment year

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

Section 37(1) of the Act will not be applicable. We therefore uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss ground no.2 raised by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13. P a g e 26 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela 33. Ground No.3 of appeal for the assessment year

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

32 ITR 466 does not arise for consideration. It is evident from the order of the High Court that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant stopped agricultural operation in November 1982 and the receipt under consideration did not relate to any agricultural operation carried on by the appellant, were not questioned before it. Though

DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR vs. ALLIED INFRA SUPPLIERS, GANJAM

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is partly

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2012-2013 C.O.No.42/Ctk/2018

section 68 cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be asked to prove the 3 ingredients of cash credits in respect of sundry creditors. The sundry credits have arisen out of transactions with the assessee of supply of goods or services and unless the AO proves that

KISHAN MOTORS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act considering the same as income of the assessee. However, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of balance amount of Rs.6,18,840/-. 27. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has accepted the cash loan of Rs.3,18,840/- from

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ODISHA 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

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, 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

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, 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