KSSIIPL VEL JV,PURI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

section 92F(iii) and reading the said provision along with Rule 10B(l)(e) of the Rules, the Tribunal held that the net profit margin of the Enterprise which is in India, has to be determined by applying the Transfer Pricing Regulations. The Tribunal was largely guided by the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Aurionpro Solutions Limited, wherein

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

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

8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, we first see the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which are as under :- Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call

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

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

8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, we first see the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which are as under :- Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call

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

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

8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, we first see the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which are as under :- Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

8. The RBI had permitted the assessee to deposit SBN into the bank account on or before ‘appointed date’. The banks were asked to accept the same before the ‘appointed date’. The SBNs (Cessation of Liabilities Act, 2017) defines ‘appointed day’ vide section 2(1)(a) of the Act. “Appointed Day” means 31st day of December, 2016. Section

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

8. With regard to above Arm Length Price Adjustment it is submitted that the aforesaid Arm Length Price Adjustment was bad and devoid of merits because for determination of aforesaid Arm Length Co. No.27/CTK/2018 Price Adjustment the Ld, TPO followed the TNM Method and whereas the JV followed the any other method as mentioned in Section

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

8. With regard to above Arm Length Price Adjustment it is submitted that the aforesaid Arm Length Price Adjustment was bad and devoid of merits because for determination of aforesaid Arm Length Co. No.27/CTK/2018 Price Adjustment the Ld, TPO followed the TNM Method and whereas the JV followed the any other method as mentioned in Section

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

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

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

8. Coming to the second ground regarding the indexation in respect of the cost of acquisition of the property, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee has made the payment of the cost of acquisition as follows:- Rs.5,00,000/- on the date of agreement being 5th March, i) 2007; The balance of Rs.39

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

8 but where the income is required to be applied to discharge the obligation after such income reaches the assessee, the same consequence, in law, does not follow. It is the first kind of payment which can truly be excused and not the second. The second kind of payment is merely an obligation to pay another a portion

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including the deficient enquiry conducted

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

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

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

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

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