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

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

16,29,46,025/- was utilised for pert infrastructure activities. Here, your kind attention is invited to the definition of infrastructure facility as stated in section 801A of the Act which reads as follows Explanation For the purposes of this clause, "infrastructure facility" means (a) a road including toll road, a bridge or a mil system: (b) a highway project

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

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

16,29,46,025/- was utilised for pert infrastructure activities. Here, your kind attention is invited to the definition of infrastructure facility as stated in section 801A of the Act which reads as follows Explanation For the purposes of this clause, "infrastructure facility" means (a) a road including toll road, a bridge or a mil system: (b) a highway project

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

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

16,29,46,025/- was utilised for pert infrastructure activities. Here, your kind attention is invited to the definition of infrastructure facility as stated in section 801A of the Act which reads as follows Explanation For the purposes of this clause, "infrastructure facility" means (a) a road including toll road, a bridge or a mil system: (b) a highway project

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

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

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

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

transfer of the original capital asset and therefore, he concluded that the assessee is owner of more than one residential flat and hence, the claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act is not allowed. 13. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s.54F of the Act for one residential unit as per his preference

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARASUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not to be made in the assessment. Other issues were also raised in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the P a g e 3 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda assessee replied to the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, however, did not give any reply

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not to be made in the assessment. Other issues were also raised in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the P a g e 3 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda assessee replied to the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, however, did not give any reply

ACIT(CIRCLE-1(1),, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not to be made in the assessment. Other issues were also raised in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the P a g e 3 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda assessee replied to the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, however, did not give any reply

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not to be made in the assessment. Other issues were also raised in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the P a g e 3 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda assessee replied to the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, however, did not give any reply

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(!), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was not to be made in the assessment. Other issues were also raised in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the P a g e 3 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda assessee replied to the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, however, did not give any reply

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

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

16 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 but belongs to somebody else and the assessee has no title to it. On the contrary, if the source is not assigned to, or transferred but passes through the assessee to an ultimate purpose, the case is of application of income in a particular manner. Even though he may enter into a legal obligation

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

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- 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