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

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

28,847 76,70,02,487 (7,38,48,052) Application (B-A) The assessee humbly request your goodself to consider the revised computation furnished at this stage and oblige. On a perusal of the above revised computation prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, it may kindly be noted that there

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

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

28,847 76,70,02,487 (7,38,48,052) Application (B-A) The assessee humbly request your goodself to consider the revised computation furnished at this stage and oblige. On a perusal of the above revised computation prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, it may kindly be noted that there

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

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

28,847 76,70,02,487 (7,38,48,052) Application (B-A) The assessee humbly request your goodself to consider the revised computation furnished at this stage and oblige. On a perusal of the above revised computation prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, it may kindly be noted that there

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

28,000/- is to be added under section 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee also for the same reason by holding that assessee was not allowed to accept the SBNs. 8. The RBI had permitted the assessee to deposit SBN into the bank account on or before ‘appointed date’. The banks were asked

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

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

28% of the constructed area. The assessee filed return u/s.148 of the Act, showing long term capital gains amounting to Rs.60,18,026/- as exempt u/s.54F of the Act. ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 According to the Assessing Officer, out of four flats delivered to the assessee by the builder, the Flat No.103

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

28 P a g e 5 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam vs. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 197(Allahabad) 35 17 V. N. V. Devarajulu Chetty and Co. v. CIT [1950] 18 ITR 357 36 24 Vibhuti Glass Works vs. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 439 (SC) 37 13 B STATEMENT OF FACTS For the sake of brevity

SUDHANSU SEKHAR RAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2007-08

price.” 3. Ld A.R. submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision dated 2.4.2012 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Udaya Keshari in ITA No.487/CTK/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08 against the order dated 3.10.2011 of the CIT(A) u/s.147/143(3) of the Act, wherein, the matter

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

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

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. Similarly, 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 and it is not understood

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

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

ACIT, BALESORE CIRCLE, BALESWAR vs. M/S. NABADURGA MINERALS , RAIRANGPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.460/Ctk/2019 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment : 2008-2009) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Vs Mr. Biirat Chandra Dagara, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj Pan No. :Aecpd 7343 D & आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita Nos.461, 386 & 387/Ctk/2019 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / A.Yrs. : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) वष" Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Vs M/S Nabbadurga Minerals, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj Pan No. :Aaabfn 8099 H & आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita Nos.111 & 112/Ctk/2020 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / A.Yrs. : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) वष" M/S Nabadurga Minerals, Vs Acit, Circle, Balasore Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj Pan No. :Aabfn 8099 H (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" .. राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 30.08.2019 & 30.09.2019, For The Assessment Years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010- 2011, Respectively. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.460/Ctk/2019 In The Case Of Birat Chandra Dagara For The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Wherein The Revenue Has Initially Has Taken Certain & Ita Nos.111&112/Ctk/2020

section 147/148 of Income Tax Act. 61. For all the above reasons, we hold that the impugned reopening notices and the orders passed rejecting the objection needs interference and are required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we allow the Petitions by quashing and setting aside the notices as well as the orders rejecting objections field by the petitioners

M/S. NABADURGA MINERALS ,RAIRANGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BALASORE

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.460/Ctk/2019 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment : 2008-2009) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Vs Mr. Biirat Chandra Dagara, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj Pan No. :Aecpd 7343 D & आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita Nos.461, 386 & 387/Ctk/2019 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / A.Yrs. : 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) वष" Acit, Balasore Circle, Balasore Vs M/S Nabbadurga Minerals, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj Pan No. :Aaabfn 8099 H & आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita Nos.111 & 112/Ctk/2020 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / A.Yrs. : 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) वष" M/S Nabadurga Minerals, Vs Acit, Circle, Balasore Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj Pan No. :Aabfn 8099 H (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" .. राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 30.08.2019 & 30.09.2019, For The Assessment Years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010- 2011, Respectively. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.460/Ctk/2019 In The Case Of Birat Chandra Dagara For The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Wherein The Revenue Has Initially Has Taken Certain & Ita Nos.111&112/Ctk/2020

section 147/148 of Income Tax Act. 61. For all the above reasons, we hold that the impugned reopening notices and the orders passed rejecting the objection needs interference and are required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we allow the Petitions by quashing and setting aside the notices as well as the orders rejecting objections field by the petitioners