M/S. ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

transferred on that day to the Commissioner and the 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 the end of the month in which

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

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

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

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

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

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

price more than the value determined by the stamp authorities. Since till date no report is submitted nor any time limit is provided in section 50C of the Act, assessee should not be punished for such an inordinate delay of almost 4 years which is solely attributable to the valuation officer and is beyond the control of the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

12. In this view of the matter and by following the decision of the co- ordinate bench of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of ITO vs Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana (Supra), we are of the considered view that the AO as well as the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition towards cash deposits to bank account

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

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, TDS, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

price which the distributor pays to P a g e 7 | 26 ITA Nos.306 t o 3 09 /C TK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ears : 20 09- 201 0 to 20 12- 13 assessee cannot be categorised as commission for the purpose of section 194H of the Act or otherwise. That though Explanation (i) to section 194H

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

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

12 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 In the instant case, first two conditions were met whereas the last condition is not fulfilled. The Consideration was neither received nor accrued in the hand of the assessee as the asset was transferred by virtue of a contractual obligation overriding the income. At this juncture, it is of paramount significance to understand

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

Transfer Pricing (TP) assessment for the AY 2010-11 has been completed on 30.01.2014 with "NIL Adjustment" after going through in detail, the transactions of imports from various parties being associated enterprises within the meaning of Section 92 (C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the aforesaid Order is enclosed and marked as Annexure-1 for your kind

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

12. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee was allotted four flats as his share which is not one residential unit but four different independent units. According to the provisions of section 54F of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.54F of the Act because he has acquired/purchased four independent residential units within a period

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)

transfer fees, fine & penalties, etc leaving apart it’s core commercial activities in the housing schemes and land plotting schemes. No element of charity is found in the activity of constructing market complexes by way of selling it at prevalent market price or by way of bidding process to the general public. The assessee was undertaking various contractual works

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