AES ORISSA DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

75,140/- under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Ld. AR demonstrated before us referring to the paper

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the time limit of issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act with reference to the original return filed by the assessee on 29.9.2011 for the assessment year 2011-12 and on 27.9.2012 for the assessment year 2012-13, respectively expired on 30.9.2012 for the assessment year

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

section 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

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

68. Placing rejoinder to above, ld A.R. submitted that in the case of M.A. Alagappan (supra), the Tribunal held that where the assessee claimed that no expenditure is incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form a part of total income under the Income tax Act, statue has provided for presumptive expenditure which

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

75,00,000/-. P a g e 2 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer under the head 'disallowance of commission' to the tune of Rs.85,59,687/-. 3. Whether

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

75,00,000/-. P a g e 2 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer under the head 'disallowance of commission' to the tune of Rs.85,59,687/-. 3. Whether

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

75,000.00 5. Dinabadnhu Behura 8,76,000.00 6. Babaji Samal 4,31,000.00 Total : Rs.86,87,746 4. As regards remaining amount of sundry creditors of Rs.22,07,294/- (Rs.12,08,95,040/- - Rs.86,87,746/-), the assessee failed to produce the confirmations. Therefore, the AO treated the said amount of Rs.22,07,294/- as income of the assessee

ROYAL MAHANAGAR DEVELOPERS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2016-17 Royal Royal Mahanagar Mahanagar Vs. Deputy Deputy Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Developers, A/55, Saheed , A/55, Saheed Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-4(1), Nagar, Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aakfr 3842 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

68,75,000/- is of land cost in respect of De-Habitat project. Copy of the ledger extract reads as follows: P a g e 5 | 9 Assessment Year : 2016-17 “ 6. Admittedly, the assessee is following completed contract method. It is also an admitted fact that the project De-Habitat is completed, that does not mean that no further

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

SMT. SANJUKTA PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

75) for your honour's kind perusal. 5.2 That the actual sales consideration for both the plots is Rs. 1 Crore being received in the form of bank transfer (RTGS) Rs. 37,95,000/- on 17.07.2012 & Rs. 62,05,000/- by cash against money receipt on the same day 17.07.2012 being directly deposited by the purchaser in the joint bank

PRALIPTA KUMAR NANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

75,000 20.10.2009 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 11 Maechheli, PO: Mahipur, Nayagarh 13. Khirabdhi Tanaya Pradhan, At/PO: Ganda- 85,000 28.10.2009 Munda, Siripur, BBSR 14. Arup Mohanty, Labour Colony, Unit-3, BBSR 96,000 15.11.2009 5. He submitted that out of 14 persons, four persons appeared before the Assessing Officer, namely Smt. Manjulata Sahu from whom Rs.81

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

M/S- RAWAT BALAJI (JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRILNCIPAL, CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

section 80-IA(4) of the Act in respect of the development of eligible infrastructural facilities. 41 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 19. Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee was assigned full responsibility to do all acts for execution and completion of work right from the beginning till handing over of the project to the contractee. The contract

SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD,JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

section 80-IA(4) of the Act in respect of the development of eligible infrastructural facilities. 41 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 19. Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee was assigned full responsibility to do all acts for execution and completion of work right from the beginning till handing over of the project to the contractee. The contract

M/S- SBEP-GRIL(JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

section 80-IA(4) of the Act in respect of the development of eligible infrastructural facilities. 41 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 19. Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee was assigned full responsibility to do all acts for execution and completion of work right from the beginning till handing over of the project to the contractee. The contract

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

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

68,454/-. Since the assessee has claimed excess deduction, the AO made disallowance of Rs.1,75,88,979/-. On the third disputed issue the assessee cooperative bank has paid commission to its agents without deduction of TDS, therefore applying the provisions of Section