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

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

18 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 "263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if the considers that any under passed thereon by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the Interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee

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

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

18 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 "263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and if the considers that any under passed thereon by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the Interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee

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

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)

section 5? In the result, assessee's appeals were dismissed. P a g e 5 | 16 C.O.No.09/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2015-16 vii.) In the ease of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315), the assessee-company was in the business of manufacturing of steel. For the purpose of construction of the plant, the assessee company gave advances

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

18,026/-, which was fully claimed as exempt under section 54F of the Act. From the letter dated 21.4.2012 of the builder, it is noted by the Assessing Officer that the builder had handed over four flats bearing No.101,103104 and 304 to the assessee towards his share consisting of 1,826 sq.ft, 1149 sq.ft, 1455 sq.ft, and 1455 sq.ft

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

Section 3. subjects to charge "all income" of an individual, it is what reaches the individual as income which it is intended to charge. In the present case the decree of the court by charging the appellant's whole resources with a specific payment to his step mother has to that extent diverted his income from him and has directed

LAXMIDHAR PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

price fixed by the builder in future. So also the Honourable CIT(Appeals) ignored the submissions made by the appellant and accepted to the value taken by the learned Additional Commissioner.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the owner of the land measuring A0.405 decimals of land at Patia, Bhubaneswar. The assessee entered into

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

18. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee company as per detailed risk analysis placed at pages 212 to 215 of the assessee‟s paper book, it is clear that that the assessee not only undertakes the entrepreneur risk, financial risk and investment risk, which are the well 40 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 settled parameters to distinguish a contractor- cum-developer from

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

18. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee company as per detailed risk analysis placed at pages 212 to 215 of the assessee‟s paper book, it is clear that that the assessee not only undertakes the entrepreneur risk, financial risk and investment risk, which are the well 40 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 settled parameters to distinguish a contractor- cum-developer from

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

18. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee company as per detailed risk analysis placed at pages 212 to 215 of the assessee‟s paper book, it is clear that that the assessee not only undertakes the entrepreneur risk, financial risk and investment risk, which are the well 40 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 settled parameters to distinguish a contractor- cum-developer from

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

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, 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, 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(!), 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

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