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

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

transfer, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer. Sub-section (2) further provides that where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-section (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (6) and (7) of section 23A, 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

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

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

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

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

section 92BA. During the assessment proceedings, reference u/s 92CA was made by the ld. AO to the jurisdictional Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Ld. TPO after calling various information and documents determined the Arm length Adjustment of Rs.3,05,45,593/- through Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM). A copy of the TPO's order dated 28.10.2016 passed u/s 92CA(3

ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

section 92BA. During the assessment proceedings, reference u/s 92CA was made by the ld. AO to the jurisdictional Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Ld. TPO after calling various information and documents determined the Arm length Adjustment of Rs.3,05,45,593/- through Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM). A copy of the TPO's order dated 28.10.2016 passed u/s 92CA(3

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

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

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHOO,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012 - 2013) Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sahoo, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Prop. Of New Kanak Jewellery & Kanak Transport, At/Po: New Market, Keonjhar-758001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Arkps 2114 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri B.R.Panda/Satyajit Nanda, Advs. : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 18.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. As Per The Office Note/Order Sheet Entry, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 48 Days. In This Regard, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. Considering The Application Along With The Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Dr Did Not Object To The Same, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & The Appeal Is Heard Finally.

transferred to other AO. On perusal of the profit and loss account and ledger furnished by the assessee, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has purchased ornaments from various dealers, among these dealers he has made purchase from M/s Lily Alankar, Cuttack and M/s Maa Santhosi Jewellers, Cuttack. On verification of ledger of purchases made from these

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

section 92CA of the Act. It was the submission that show cause notice in the form of a notice u/s.142(1) had been issued by the Assessing officer for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012- 13, wherein, the Assessing Officer had categorically asked the assessee to show cause why the additions as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

section 92CA of the Act. It was the submission that show cause notice in the form of a notice u/s.142(1) had been issued by the Assessing officer for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012- 13, wherein, the Assessing Officer had categorically asked the assessee to show cause why the additions as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

section 92CA of the Act. It was the submission that show cause notice in the form of a notice u/s.142(1) had been issued by the Assessing officer for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012- 13, wherein, the Assessing Officer had categorically asked the assessee to show cause why the additions as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

section 92CA of the Act. It was the submission that show cause notice in the form of a notice u/s.142(1) had been issued by the Assessing officer for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012- 13, wherein, the Assessing Officer had categorically asked the assessee to show cause why the additions as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

section 92CA of the Act. It was the submission that show cause notice in the form of a notice u/s.142(1) had been issued by the Assessing officer for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012- 13, wherein, the Assessing Officer had categorically asked the assessee to show cause why the additions as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in overlooking the ratio of the judgment in Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, Kozhikode [2015] and Commissioner of income-tax-1, Kanpur vs. Sunil Sagar Co. [2017]? 4. Any other ground of appeal that may arise at the time of hearing. 5. Since all the appeals

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in overlooking the ratio of the judgment in Grihalakshmi Vision vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, Kozhikode [2015] and Commissioner of income-tax-1, Kanpur vs. Sunil Sagar Co. [2017]? 4. Any other ground of appeal that may arise at the time of hearing. 5. Since all the appeals

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

3 of said bill, on or from the appointed date notwithstanding anything contained in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 or any other law for the time being in force, the specified bank notes which have ceased to be legal tender, in view of the notification of the Government of India dated 08.11.2016 shall cease to be liabilities