INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

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

Transfer Pricing in India - A Compendium, the relevant extract is set out below:- "While applying CUP method product comparability should be examined rather than business functions. The CUP method is used in cases where an independent enterprise buys or sells products that are identical or very similar to those purchase/sold by one AE to another AE or in situations where

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

transfer the entire sale proceeds to AE to ensure lowest sale price to MC. The assessee failed to justify the rationality of the approach since, the ultimate sale price to MCL is not linked with the cost of either assessee or AE in the entire scheme of arrangement. Further, the assessee's contention that the income of the assessee

ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

transfer the entire sale proceeds to AE to ensure lowest sale price to MC. The assessee failed to justify the rationality of the approach since, the ultimate sale price to MCL is not linked with the cost of either assessee or AE in the entire scheme of arrangement. Further, the assessee's contention that the income of the assessee

LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the directions

transfer, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer. Sub-section (2) further provides that where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-section (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

price. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of land development and plot trading, filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income

MR. BICHITRANANDA ROUT,SHANKARPUR, CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

transferring or receiving SBNs is only after the ‘appointed day’ which is 31.12.2016. In view of the above, there is no violation by the assessee of any law in accepting SBNs for the purpose of cash sales and considering it to be a due discharge of debt. Furthermore, even the CBDT had issued various Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) instructing

ORISSA OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-2010

transferred on that day to the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner and the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may proceed with such applications under that sub- section from the stage at which they were on that day. (2) Every order granting or refusing registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be passed before the expiry of six months from

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. POSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.09/Ctk/2020 (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer under the provisions of Section 92CA. In other words, no business income has been generated by the assessee. The expenditure claimed therefore was only for the purpose of setting up the project envisaged and there is no method for balancing interest, if any, passed on to the share holders on account of dividend or business income

MJSJ COAL LIMITED,ANGUL vs. ITO, WARD-2, DHENKANAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

Transfer Pricing Officer under the provisions of Section 92CA. In other words, no business income hasbeen generated by the assessee. The expenditure claimed therefore was only for the purpose of setting up the project envisaged and there is no method for balancing interest, if any, passed on to the share holders on account of dividend or business income

MJSJ COAL LIMITED,ANGUL vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHUBANESWAR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

Transfer Pricing Officer under the provisions of Section 92CA. In other words, no business income hasbeen generated by the assessee. The expenditure claimed therefore was only for the purpose of setting up the project envisaged and there is no method for balancing interest, if any, passed on to the share holders on account of dividend or business income

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

11. For these and other grounds if any that will be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the assessment be quashed and the demand be annulled in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. In Ground Nos.1 to 4 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the time of development agreement for development

ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

11. For these and other grounds if any that will be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the assessment be quashed and the demand be annulled in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. In Ground Nos.1 to 4 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the time of development agreement for development

BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadalebhubaneswar Development Vs. Cit, Bhubaneswar. Authority, Akash Shova Building, Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Aaalb 0073 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

11 or under section 10(23C) of the Act if they carry on commercial activities. Whether such an entity is carrying on an activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business is a question of fact, which will be decided based on the nature, scope, extent and frequency of the activity." The proviso very clearly uses the languages "activity

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

price. Nothing has been brought on record by the AO to prove that the persons paid were in pursuance of a contract. Therefore, Section 40(a)(ia) has no application has been decided in the case of CIT Vs. United Rice Land Ltd, 217 CTR 332, 322 ITR 594 (P&H), (Page No. 71 of the Paper Book). The Honourable

ITO, WARD-3(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. GAYA SANTARA, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09

11. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. S.B.Realcon Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar for construction and sale of flats on his land situated at Plot No.88/1189, Pokhariput, Old Town, Bhubaneswar during the financial year 2007-08. Thus, there