M/S. NIYATI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-2007

section 68 in respect of shares application money, in view of fact that address and PAN were not provided for all parties whereas in case of some of share applicants, there were transactions of deposits and immediate withdrawals of money, impugned addition was to be confirmed - Held, yes [Paras 5, 6 and 14] [In favour of revenue] (viii) Dhingra

PRASANTA KUMAR MOHAPATRA,KEONJHAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.113/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Mining Road, New Market, Keonjhar, Odisha Pan No. :Aavpm 9636 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Dated 25.08.2021, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1035100447(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Committed Serious Error In Modify The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer Which Is Unjust, Illegal, Arbitrary, Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions F The Act, Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Been Made In Gross Violation To The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Annulled. 2. That, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Sambalpur Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Jurisdiction Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order Thereof Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled. 3. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Scope Of Power Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order There Off Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled.

section 68 of the Act which is liable to be deleted. 7. That, the appellant may add, alter, delete, withdraw or amend any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the matter with the leave of ld Hon’ble ITAT. 2. The assessee is represented by Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate and department is represented by Shri Sanjay Kumar

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MAGNUM TELESOFT PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.82/Ctk/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Magnum Telesoft Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., 132-A, Sector- A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-10 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca 1519 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan,Citdr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty & M.Ganesh, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Passed In Itappeal No.0542/2014-15, Dated 3.12.2015, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.48,07,984/- Made By The Ao U/S.68 On Account Of Unsecured Loan. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting The Examination Of Findings Made By The Ao On The Issue. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Medical Transcription & Filed The Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On 10.03.2011 With Total

74,482/- and the return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 29.8.2011. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the notice u/s.143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance, the ld. AR appeared from time to time and produced the books of accounts, cash book, ledger copies and bills and vouchers

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHA,BARIPADA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

74,850 I don’t know P a g e 5 | 11 ITA No. 154/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4 He observed that the assessee was not confronted with these deficiencies/adverse evidences available on record. The Assessing Officer has passed a routine assessment order after glossing over the adverse evidence and without making further enquiry

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

74,15,000/-, under the head Share Application. It happened when at the end of the year the shares are not allotted. And also as mentioned by the Learned JCIT. R K Das has made declaration voluntarily during the course of search operation. The same amount has been retracted subsequently The Learned Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order

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

74,15,000/-, under the head Share Application. It happened when at the end of the year the shares are not allotted. And also as mentioned by the Learned JCIT. R K Das has made declaration voluntarily during the course of search operation. The same amount has been retracted subsequently The Learned Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order

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

68,27,315.48 From the above recasted balance sheet, It is seen that the liabilities side of the balance sheet is less by Rs.1,83,89,574.48 P a g e 4 | 18 ITA No 481/CT K/ 2017 C.O. No. 42/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year :20 12- 201 3 than the assets side which represents the undisclosed investments

ORISSA CHROME EXPORT & MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Orissa Orissa Chrome Chrome Export Export & & Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(2), Mining Company Pvt Ltd., A Mining Company Pvt Ltd., A- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar 65/1, 65/1, Nayapali, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaco 4389 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Suresh Shivanand Shivanandan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) -1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated17.9.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0344/16-17 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For Th Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S E Assessee & Shri Suresh Shivanandan, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. , Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

section 68 of the Act. It was the submission that consequently, the Assessing Officer was right in making the disallowance as the assessee has been unable to prove the genuineness of the said claim. He has placed reliance on the decision of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Bangalore ITAT in the case of Suresh Kumar

R.N. SAHOO & OTHERS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

68 have been discharged by the assessee by furnishing the relevant evidences. The evidences which were furnished by the assessee were confirmation letters of the partners, copies of I.T.Returns, PAN Nos, and income declared. By furnishing the above, the preliminary onus was discharged by the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that all the partners have owned

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

NABAKISHORE DASH,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, PARADEEP

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2008-09

74,018/-. The assessee possesses motor- cycle/car, etc, which may not have been used by the assessee for the business of the assessee. Since, the assessee could not produce the bills and vouchers of fuel, the Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed fuel expenses of Rs.20,000/- out of the total claim of Rs.80,134/-. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed

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) ..

74,73,300, Rs. 4,09,11,235/- and Rs. 68,90,7181- u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 2340 of the Act respectively by the learned CIT(Appeals) is incorrect arbitrary, erroneous and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts. b. That the assessee having filed its return u/s.139(1) of the Act, the lower authority having

ARSS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATION CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-2013

68,34,000/- towards interest expenses, out of which, following interest claimed as expenses were not deposited before due date of filing the return of income: Sl.No. Name of the bank Interest (Rs.) 1. IDBI Bank (OD) 7,29,844 2. IDBI Bank(Escrow) 1,64,376 3. SBI, Jajpur 6,46,001 4. Export Import Bank

TEKCHAND HARILAL,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

68,500/- during demonetisation period by applying section 69A of the Act. Besides, the AO also disallowed Rs.19,360/- i.e. 10% of carriage outward expenses on adhoc estimate basis Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) but without success. 3. At the time of hearing

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

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 14A r.w. 8D of I.T.Rules a. The ld A.R. strenuously contended that from the observations of the AO in the assessment order and findings recorded by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order clearly reveals that the authorities below have not made substantial compliance of mandate of statutory provisions of section 14A r.w Rule

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 14A r.w. 8D of I.T.Rules a. The ld A.R. strenuously contended that from the observations of the AO in the assessment order and findings recorded by the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order clearly reveals that the authorities below have not made substantial compliance of mandate of statutory provisions of section 14A r.w Rule

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

section 194C(5) of the Act, which provides that in such cases no TDS was to be deducted from the payments made for transportation of goods and, therefore, no disallowance can be made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS from such payments. We find that the assessee before the CIT(A) relied

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

74,84,413 80,94,164 42,85,040 67,76,451 development exp. 4. Community - 13,56,980 11,91,862 34,56,438 37,68,948 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