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

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

5. In view of the finding that the assessee was not making any fresh claim and had duly furnished the documents and submitted Form for claim under section 2018, there was no requirement for fling any revised return. The judgment relied upon was not applicable. 6. Accordingly, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises

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

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

5. In view of the finding that the assessee was not making any fresh claim and had duly furnished the documents and submitted Form for claim under section 2018, there was no requirement for fling any revised return. The judgment relied upon was not applicable. 6. Accordingly, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises

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

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

5. In view of the finding that the assessee was not making any fresh claim and had duly furnished the documents and submitted Form for claim under section 2018, there was no requirement for fling any revised return. The judgment relied upon was not applicable. 6. Accordingly, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises

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, 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

D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM These are cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 22.4.2014 for the assessment year 2010-2011. First, we take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.289/CTK/2014. ITA No. 264/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 2. In Ground Nos.1

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:

price of tickets sold to the public varying from Rs.600 to Rs.20,000 per ticket per person, for watching live cricket. With regard to this activity being commercial in nature within the amended provision of the section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not charitable, the appellant would firstly like to quote clause 4 sub clause

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

17-21 26-27 5. CMPDIL Expenses 2029.00 3(4) 6 21-23 28-29 6. Disallowance u/s 14A 576.90 3(5) 21-24 32-36 30-38 7. Interest on Income tax refund 1692.00 3(6) 25 36-37 39 Before we commence our submission on the merits of individual matters, we wish to submit that the assessee Company

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

D. Sassoon & Co Lid CIT 11954) 26 ITR 27, hand held that if the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, P a g e 10 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 the income is said to have accrued to him, though, it may be received later on. The basic concept is that he must have acquired a right

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

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

D E R Per Bench P a g e 1 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda ITA No.260/CTK/2020 is filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A), Cuttack dated 18.9.2020 in Appeal No.0095/2017-18 in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-2011. C.O. No.9

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

D E R Per Bench P a g e 1 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda ITA No.260/CTK/2020 is filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A), Cuttack dated 18.9.2020 in Appeal No.0095/2017-18 in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-2011. C.O. No.9

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

D E R Per Bench P a g e 1 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda ITA No.260/CTK/2020 is filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A), Cuttack dated 18.9.2020 in Appeal No.0095/2017-18 in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-2011. C.O. No.9

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

D E R Per Bench P a g e 1 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda ITA No.260/CTK/2020 is filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A), Cuttack dated 18.9.2020 in Appeal No.0095/2017-18 in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-2011. C.O. No.9

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

D E R Per Bench P a g e 1 | 17 M/s. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda ITA No.260/CTK/2020 is filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A), Cuttack dated 18.9.2020 in Appeal No.0095/2017-18 in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-2011. C.O. No.9

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

D E R Per L.P.Sahu, AM These are bunch of four appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the CIT(A),1, Bhubaneswar, all dated 20.8.2019 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13, respectively. 2. In all these appeals, the assessee has raised various common grounds. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal

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

D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM These are cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-I, Bhubaneswar, dated 23.9.2014, for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Ground No.1 in Revenue’s appeal reads as under: ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 “1. On the facts

THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-II, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 also make a distinction between the rent and premium payable under lease. When the interest of the lessor is charged with for a price, the price paid is premium or salami but the periodical payment made for the continuous enjoyment of the benefits under lease are in the nature of rent. Their Lordships held that

THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-II, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 also make a distinction between the rent and premium payable under lease. When the interest of the lessor is charged with for a price, the price paid is premium or salami but the periodical payment made for the continuous enjoyment of the benefits under lease are in the nature of rent. Their Lordships held that