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) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee which was duly responded. As the case was selected for scrutiny on the TP parameters, the required approval was obtained by the Ld. AO from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax for referring the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer(‘TPO’). Thereafter, the case was referred

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

9. With regard to applicability of "any other method" as mentioned in Section 92C (l)(f) of the Act, in case of appellant JV, it is pertinent to note the meaning of Arm length Price as mentioned in clause (ii) of section 92F which is reproduced herein below: 92F. In sections 92,92A, 928, 92C, 920 and 92£, unless

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

9. With regard to applicability of "any other method" as mentioned in Section 92C (l)(f) of the Act, in case of appellant JV, it is pertinent to note the meaning of Arm length Price as mentioned in clause (ii) of section 92F which is reproduced herein below: 92F. In sections 92,92A, 928, 92C, 920 and 92£, unless

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. This as per the assessment order itself the full amount has been paid before the year ending 31st March, 2007. Once the amount has fully been paid as on the year ending 31.03.2007, in view of the provision of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and in view of the Section 43A of the Transfer Pricing

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

9 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 2.5 Copy of supporting invoice raised by the appellant to 753 M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JVI • CODV of audit report in Form No. 10CCB issued by independent chartered 2,6 accountant in respect of work done by the appellant 754-758 eligible for deduction under section

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

9 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 2.5 Copy of supporting invoice raised by the appellant to 753 M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JVI • CODV of audit report in Form No. 10CCB issued by independent chartered 2,6 accountant in respect of work done by the appellant 754-758 eligible for deduction under section

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

9 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 2.5 Copy of supporting invoice raised by the appellant to 753 M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JVI • CODV of audit report in Form No. 10CCB issued by independent chartered 2,6 accountant in respect of work done by the appellant 754-758 eligible for deduction under section

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

9 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 2.5 Copy of supporting invoice raised by the appellant to 753 M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JVI • CODV of audit report in Form No. 10CCB issued by independent chartered 2,6 accountant in respect of work done by the appellant 754-758 eligible for deduction under section

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

9 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 2.5 Copy of supporting invoice raised by the appellant to 753 M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JVI • CODV of audit report in Form No. 10CCB issued by independent chartered 2,6 accountant in respect of work done by the appellant 754-758 eligible for deduction under section

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

9 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 2.5 Copy of supporting invoice raised by the appellant to 753 M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JVI • CODV of audit report in Form No. 10CCB issued by independent chartered 2,6 accountant in respect of work done by the appellant 754-758 eligible for deduction under section

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

9 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 2.5 Copy of supporting invoice raised by the appellant to 753 M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JVI • CODV of audit report in Form No. 10CCB issued by independent chartered 2,6 accountant in respect of work done by the appellant 754-758 eligible for deduction under section

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

Section 3. subjects to charge "all income" of an individual, it is what reaches the individual as income which it is intended to charge. In the present case the decree of the court by charging the appellant's whole resources with a specific payment to his step mother has to that extent diverted his income from him and has directed

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

2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that since no addition of unaccounted income has been made, question of levying penalty for violation of section 269SS and 269T does not arise, when the addition on account of cash loan has been duly made and confirmed in the hands of the sister concern of the assessee. 3. Whether