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. 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

INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing-1, Kolkata (Ld. TPO') on September 12, 2023, proposing a downward adjustment of Rs. 182,23,39,293, which was subsequently approved by the Ld. DRP vide directions dated

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

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

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

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 :

2-4 Page ref. of CIT(A) order:3-5 A. FACTS: 2.1 The assessee has claimed Rs. 27491.00 Lakhs as depreciation on lease hold land under section 32(1)(ii) of the LT. Act,1961 as the mining rights are in the nature of intangible assets. 2.2 The Ld. AO has disallowed the claim of such depreciation

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 (2

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 (2

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 (2

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

2(1)(a) of the Act. “Appointed Day” means 31st day of December, 2016. Section 5 of the SBNs Cessation of Liabilities Act, 2017 also deals with prohibition of holding, transferring or receiving SBNs. Section 5 states as under : “5. On and from the appointed day, no person shall, knowingly or voluntarily, hold, transfer or receive any specified bank note

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)

section 2(15).” 6. Hence, it was his submission that the case of the assessee is identical with the case of Lucknow Industrial Development Authority and Lucknow Development Authority(supra). Therefore, following the same, the registration should be granted to the assessee. 7. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on para 5 of the order of the CIT, which

ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

transfer of property within the meaning of the provisions of section 2(47)(v). Hence, long term capital gain has arisen during the FY 2006-07. 5. The super built up area of 3 dwelling units given to the assessee by the builder is 5157 sqft. Taking into account the market price of remaining 6

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

transfer of property within the meaning of the provisions of section 2(47)(v). Hence, long term capital gain has arisen during the FY 2006-07. 5. The super built up area of 3 dwelling units given to the assessee by the builder is 5157 sqft. Taking into account the market price of remaining 6

SMT. PURNIMA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Purnima Das, C/O. Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Biswajit Das, At-9, Budha Nagar, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aazpd0112 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit Passed U./S.263 Of The Act, Dated 12.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Reev5/2021-22/10540634159(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee Assisted By Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr & Ms. Simran Samal, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue Assisted By Shri Dharmashoka Panda, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is A Professor Of Mathematics At P.N.College, Khurda. The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year On 5.8.2017

price and mode of receipt etc. along with agricultural expenses such as purchase of seeds, fertilizers, labour charges etc. Please see that in the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 (page-1 of the paper book filed by the appellant), as per column-10 (exempt income), the appellant had herself declared nil agricultural income

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

transfer thereof as Capital Gain, the same shall not be put to dispute by the Assessing Officer. In other words, the Revenue would not pursue this issue if the necessary ingredients are satisfied, only rider being the stand taken by the assessee in a particular year would be followed in the subsequent years also and the assessee would

M/S. SKM-UMSL JV,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.229/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 - 2015) M/S Skm-Umsl Jv, Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), At-Imfa Building, Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aajas 2542 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Jena, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 18.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds :- A. For That The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. Ao) Has Initiated Penalty Proceeding On The Behest Of Ld. Dcit (Tp)-Ii, Kolkata U/S.271Ba Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In The Assessment Order Dated29.12.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act . The Impugned Order Of Imposing Penalty U/S.271Ba Of Act Has Been Passed On 25.06.2018 By The Ld. A.O Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant & Without Exercising His Discretion As Vested By The Statute. However Without Adjudicating The Appeal Despite The Fact That The Particular Provision Of Specified Domestic Transaction Has Been Omitted From Statute By The Finance Act, 2017 The Ld. Cit (A) Is Erred In Upholding The Penalty Order. Therefore Orders Of Forum Below Are Unsustainable & Impermissible Under Law.

price in relation to specified domestic transactions u/s.92CA of the Act. Thereafter as per the order of the TPO, the AO completed assessment making addition of Rs.55,43,224/-. Simultaneously, the penalty proceedings u/s.271BA of the Act was initiated against the assessee for failure to furnish the report in prescribed Form No.3CEB in terms of provision of section