RELIABLE SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (ORISSA) PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

ITA 164/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2026AY 2018-201930 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid despite minor discrepancies in figures. However, it deleted the addition on account of TDS, while upholding additions related to service tax, PF & ESI, and miscellaneous expenses.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a stay application and an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2018-19. The primary issues revolved around the validity of assessment reopening, service tax liability, PF/ESI contributions, miscellaneous expenses, and TDS.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of the assessment reopening based on alleged incorrect figures and the merits of additions made by the AO regarding service tax, PF/ESI, miscellaneous expenses, and TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “HYBRID COURT AT CUTTACK”

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 29/05/2026Pronounced: 29/05/2026

PER BENCH: The stay application and the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to ‘CIT(A)) in appeal no.NFAC/2017-18/10247440 dated 10/12/2025 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Shri Lalatendu Sahu & Manmohan Mishra, A

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →