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.

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

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

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

92,400 23/06/2009 'Shop No. 12, Krishna Homeo Clinic, Siripur, Bhubaneswar. 9 Namita Sahoo 77,000 03/07/2009 Plot No-69, Dumduma Housing Board Colony, Bhubaneswar-19 10 Manjulata Sahu 81,200 21/08/2009 Plot No.69, Dumuduma, H.B. colony, Bhubaneswar. 11 Rohit Bhanj, At-Aiginia, PO: Dumuduma, 80,000 26/08/2009 Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. 12. Bhobani Puhamn & Prahulla Behera, At: 75,000 20.10.2009 Asse

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

PASUPATI FEEDS,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011 are allowed and that the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2018 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011 Acit, Central Circle, Acit, Central Circle, Vs. M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaefp 4117 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of It (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) Assessment Years: 2008 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011

92,373/- - 2012-13 2013-14 7,98,68,487/- 69,96,381/- 59,90,136/ 69,61,374/- - 2013-14 2014-15 8,18,89,655/- 56,81,850/- 61,41,724/ 61,41,724/- - TOTAL 3,85,30,339/- 3,08,00,0 4,03,74,113/- 42/- 1. Estimation of Net Profit:- As the practice of newspaper

PASUPATI FEEDS,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011 are allowed and that the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2018 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011 Acit, Central Circle, Acit, Central Circle, Vs. M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, M/S. Pasupati Feeds, Kota Sahi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Tangi, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaefp 4117 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 C.O.Nos.33 To 35/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of It (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) A Nos.45 To 47/Ctk/2018) Assessment Years: 2008 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010 09 To 2010-2011

92,373/- - 2012-13 2013-14 7,98,68,487/- 69,96,381/- 59,90,136/ 69,61,374/- - 2013-14 2014-15 8,18,89,655/- 56,81,850/- 61,41,724/ 61,41,724/- - TOTAL 3,85,30,339/- 3,08,00,0 4,03,74,113/- 42/- 1. Estimation of Net Profit:- As the practice of newspaper

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

92 submitted that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted. The Assessing Officer did not accept the above submission of the assessee and rejected the explanation of the assessee relying on the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. Crescent Export Syndicates, 216 Taxman 258 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

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

SK. GOLAM MUSTAFA,JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sk.Golam Mustafa Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack New Siaria, Trijanga, Rehabilitation Colony, Danagadi, Jajpur-755026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akgpm 6161 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 27.02.2018 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0005/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Cuttack Confirming The Addition Of Rs 2,35,127/- Made By The Acit,Circle-L(L) Cuttack Under Section 40A(3) Of It Act 1961 In Computing The Business Income Of The Assessee Is Arbitrary To Law & The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Incometax (Appeats),Cuttack Is Not Justified In Disallowing The Professional Fees Paid Amounting To Rs 6,68,680/- On The Ground That No Tds Has Been Deducted From Such Payments. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Contract Work Under The Name & Style Of Royal Enterprises

68,680/-. Ld. AO applied the provision of Section 194J as the assessee could not substantiate with any evidence and also the reasons for non-deduction of TDS. Similarly, in the appellate proceedings, ld AR submitted that the amount has been paid by account payee cheque and relied on the judicial decisions. Ld. CIT(A) having consider the findings

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

92,510.00 RS. 81,25,000.00 N I L 2014-15 Rs.2,68,220.00 Rs. 17,68,220.00 Rs. 15,00,000.00 Rs.15,00,000.00 2015-16 Rs.3,19,320.00 Rs. 33,56,820.00 Rs. 30,37,500.00 R.s.30,37,500.00 2016-17 Rs.3,28,800.00 Rs.1,29,55,340.00 Rs.1,26,26,535.00 Rs. 9,73,821.00 That, four

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

92,510.00 RS. 81,25,000.00 N I L 2014-15 Rs.2,68,220.00 Rs. 17,68,220.00 Rs. 15,00,000.00 Rs.15,00,000.00 2015-16 Rs.3,19,320.00 Rs. 33,56,820.00 Rs. 30,37,500.00 R.s.30,37,500.00 2016-17 Rs.3,28,800.00 Rs.1,29,55,340.00 Rs.1,26,26,535.00 Rs. 9,73,821.00 That, four

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

92,510.00 RS. 81,25,000.00 N I L 2014-15 Rs.2,68,220.00 Rs. 17,68,220.00 Rs. 15,00,000.00 Rs.15,00,000.00 2015-16 Rs.3,19,320.00 Rs. 33,56,820.00 Rs. 30,37,500.00 R.s.30,37,500.00 2016-17 Rs.3,28,800.00 Rs.1,29,55,340.00 Rs.1,26,26,535.00 Rs. 9,73,821.00 That, four

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 u/s.14A of the Act is unjustified, arbitrary, contrary to facts, erroneous and bad in law. d. The assessee's computation of the aforesaid Rs. 2,07,503/- u/s.14A of the Act is based on its books of accounts and is worked out in a reasonable and fair manner and the learned lower authorities have mis-appreciated/misconstrued

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

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 National National Aluminium Aluminium Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(2), Company Limited., Nalco Company Limited., Nalco Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhawan, Bhawan, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacn 7449 M (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca & Shri P. Venugopal Rao, Ca Venugopal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

68,569/- on 100% block of asset acquired of Rs. 12,81,03,727/-. Please explain how the same is admissible under the provisions of the Act. P a g e 3 | 13 Assessment Year : 2016-17 2. You have claimed deduction u/s 32AC of the Act. In this regard please furnish following details of assets acquired and installed

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

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