M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price in respect of work executed by it and incurred various expenses for carrying out the work awarded to the joint venture. Therefore, the resultant profit earned by the appellant from carrying out these projects on behalf of the joint ventures is also eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 3.11) The appellant in the above paras

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price in respect of work executed by it and incurred various expenses for carrying out the work awarded to the joint venture. Therefore, the resultant profit earned by the appellant from carrying out these projects on behalf of the joint ventures is also eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 3.11) The appellant in the above paras

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price in respect of work executed by it and incurred various expenses for carrying out the work awarded to the joint venture. Therefore, the resultant profit earned by the appellant from carrying out these projects on behalf of the joint ventures is also eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 3.11) The appellant in the above paras

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price in respect of work executed by it and incurred various expenses for carrying out the work awarded to the joint venture. Therefore, the resultant profit earned by the appellant from carrying out these projects on behalf of the joint ventures is also eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 3.11) The appellant in the above paras

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price in respect of work executed by it and incurred various expenses for carrying out the work awarded to the joint venture. Therefore, the resultant profit earned by the appellant from carrying out these projects on behalf of the joint ventures is also eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 3.11) The appellant in the above paras

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price in respect of work executed by it and incurred various expenses for carrying out the work awarded to the joint venture. Therefore, the resultant profit earned by the appellant from carrying out these projects on behalf of the joint ventures is also eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 3.11) The appellant in the above paras

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

price in respect of work executed by it and incurred various expenses for carrying out the work awarded to the joint venture. Therefore, the resultant profit earned by the appellant from carrying out these projects on behalf of the joint ventures is also eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 3.11) The appellant in the above paras

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

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

4), (5) and (6) of section 16-A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23-A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34- AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply

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

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

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) Notwithstanding anything contained in 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) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

ABANI PATTANAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR

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

Section 43A of the Transfer Pricing Act, as part performance as required from the side of the assessee, has fully been complied with being the payment of consideration, the indexation would be available to the assessee from the assessment year 2007-2008 relevant to the financial year 2006-2007. In view of the above, this ground of assessee is allowed

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

4 It may be difficult, in a particular case, to distinguish between what is an 'application' of income and what amounts to 'diversion'. The landmark case of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra) is probably the best answer to this vexed question. A 3 Judge Bench of the Apex Court has wonderfully explained in what circumstances there

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

4. For that, when the learned A.O. could not get any excess or illegal mining, he should have dropped the proceeding instead of enhancing the income by estimating the net profit @ 65 % of gross receipts and the learned C.I.T(A) should have quashed the impugned order of Reassessment instead of reducing the estimation to 10% of the gross receipts

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

4. For that, when the learned A.O. could not get any excess or illegal mining, he should have dropped the proceeding instead of enhancing the income by estimating the net profit @ 65 % of gross receipts and the learned C.I.T(A) should have quashed the impugned order of Reassessment instead of reducing the estimation to 10% of the gross receipts