OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

68 of the Act in respect of the unsecured loans taken by the assessee, it was submitted that these loans were the same amounts which have been treated by the Pr. CIT as being liable for deemed dividend. It was the submission that these loans had been specifically examined by the Assessing Officer in the course of ‘e’ assessment

URMILA KISHAN,ANGUL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) erred in making an addition of Rs. 73,48,000/- under section

SAMIR KUMAR PAIKARAY,KHURDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KHURDA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 382/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Samir Kumar Paikaray,………….………….,…Appellant Sriram Nagar, Khurdha, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha [Pan:Ahcpp4275D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Khurda Ward, Khurda, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha Appearances By: Shri K.K. Bal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

48,640/- made in his bank accounts during the demonetization period. The assessee explained that a sum of Rs.77,24,640/- was received from nine different debtors and the balance amount of Rs.2,13,24,000/- was deposited from day-to- day sale proceeds of petrol, diesel and lubricants during the demonetization period. The assessee was asked to 2 Samir

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

SRI PRADEEP BEURIA,BHADRAK vs. ITO BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act treating the cash deposits of Rs.16,48,000/- as unexplained cash credit. It was the submission

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

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

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

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

section 2018, there was no requirement for fling any revised return. The judgment relied upon was not applicable. 6. Accordingly, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. 7. The appeal is dismissed In the present case, undoubtedly the assessee is a trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and thus is eligible to claim

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

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

section 2018, there was no requirement for fling any revised return. The judgment relied upon was not applicable. 6. Accordingly, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. 7. The appeal is dismissed In the present case, undoubtedly the assessee is a trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and thus is eligible to claim

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

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

section 2018, there was no requirement for fling any revised return. The judgment relied upon was not applicable. 6. Accordingly, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. 7. The appeal is dismissed In the present case, undoubtedly the assessee is a trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and thus is eligible to claim

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

48,80,980.00 from Gopalpur Port Limited + Rs. 1,08,27,329.52 from Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Ltd.] under the head "Current assets, loans & advances.' During P a g e 3 | 18 ITA No 481/CT K/ 2017 C.O. No. 42/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year :20 12- 201 3 the head “current assets, loans & advances. During the course of assessment

MAA JAGAT JANANI SEVA TRUST,NAMBIRA vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-2015 2015 Maa Maa Jagat Jagat Janani Janani Seva Seva Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Trust, At- -Nambira, Po: Income Income Tax, Tax, Exemption Exemption Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Circle, Bhubaneswar Circle, Bhubaneswar Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aadtm 1575 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 7.6.2023 In Appeal No.Nfac/2013 Nfac/2013-14/10180318 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1. Out of fund transfer of Rs.5,18,62,600/-, major payments were made to the following parties: Sl.No. Name of the party Amount in Rs. 1. Raghunath Mohapatra 50,00,000 2. Ashok Kumar Mahakud 80,00,000 3. Ranjit Kumar Barik 60,00,000 4. Bhaktabandhu Mohanta

BASUKINATH ROADWAYS PVT. LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

48,050/-. The Pr. CIT on the issue of orders passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial that assessee’s primary business is transportation of iron ore and other minerals to various mines to railway siding and loading of the same material into railway rack for onward transportation. Further in the course of entire process of handling, loss

MAKEWAY CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-2011

section 68 of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee received share application money of Rs.44,00,000/- in cash from the following persons: “Maeway Consultancy Private Limited Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1 Details of Share Capital Introduced during Financial Year 2009-10 AMOUNT NAME

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

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

48 ITR (Trib)630(Delhi). In so far as the estimation of gross profit made by the Assessing Officer modified by the CIT(Appeals), tribunal has rightly held that when the books of accounts of the assessee had not been rejected and assessment having not been framed under section 144 of Income Tax Act the said authorities were

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,503/- by invoking the provisions ITA Nos.339&340/CTK/16 &376/CTK/14 & CO.01/CTK/15&25/CTK/16 of Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D, observing that the disallowance made suo- moto by the assessee is very less compared to the administrative and employee cost devoted to earn the exempt income. 14. On appeal, the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to Rs.4,70,61,000/- considering

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

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

48,667/-. In the absence of suitable explanation, the AO took a view that the Investment from which tax free dividend income was earned might have been made out of Interest bearing funds and assessee P a g e 51 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 might have incurred certain expenses for earning tax free income. [PB.Pg.Nos.36.Audited Financials