NISHA DATA COM LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

natural justice and therefore the order of the Appellate Authority is also illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. For that the additions having been made under pure surmises and conjectures without bringing any corroborative evidence, the additions are liable to be annulled. 6. That the Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to urge any other ground/grounds

NISHA DATA COM LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

natural justice and therefore the order of the Appellate Authority is also illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. For that the additions having been made under pure surmises and conjectures without bringing any corroborative evidence, the additions are liable to be annulled. 6. That the Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to urge any other ground/grounds

GANAPATI BUILDERS LIMITED,BARGARH vs. ITO, BARAGARH WARD, BARGARH, BARGARH

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

without TDS, and unexplained bank deposits, and whether the assessee was denied natural justice by the rejection of additional evidence." } }

NESCO EMPLOYEES GRATUITY FUND TRUST,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS. The CPC processed the return u/s\n143(1) of the Act on 02.01.2018 and disallowed the claim of exemption and\nraised a demand. Against the intimation, a rectification application u/s 154\nwas filed on behalf of the assessee by its authorized representative on\n24.08.2023 stating therein that the trust was eligible for exemption and that\nit was claimed wrongly

M/S. MAA TARANI LOGISTICS LTD,JODA vs. ACIT CIR.-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

TDS side for the F..Y. 2022. For better understanding, one page of the dividend details for the assessment year 2012-13 is extracted as follows: F.No. Name of No.of Total amount Dividend @ Bank account No. Name of shareholders shares of 35% (12-13) bank shares(Rs.) 01 Balasubramanian 8900 890,000.00 311,500.00 Prabhakaran 02 Balasubramanian

M/S. GURU MAHARAJ CONSTRUCTION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarita No Ita No.24/Ctk/2023: Assessment Year Assessment Year-2012-13

natural justice. However, ld AR submitted that in the assessment year 2018-19, the ld CIT(A) has allowed the penalty on TDS

M/S. GURU MAHARAJ CONSTRUCTION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarita No Ita No.24/Ctk/2023: Assessment Year Assessment Year-2012-13

natural justice. However, ld AR submitted that in the assessment year 2018-19, the ld CIT(A) has allowed the penalty on TDS

M/S. GURU MAHARAJ CONSTRUCTION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarita No Ita No.24/Ctk/2023: Assessment Year Assessment Year-2012-13

natural justice. However, ld AR submitted that in the assessment year 2018-19, the ld CIT(A) has allowed the penalty on TDS

M/S. GURU MAHARAJ CONSTRUCTION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarita No Ita No.24/Ctk/2023: Assessment Year Assessment Year-2012-13

natural justice. However, ld AR submitted that in the assessment year 2018-19, the ld CIT(A) has allowed the penalty on TDS

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

TDS was claimed. The impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 7. For that, both the authorities below have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in determining the total income

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

TDS was claimed. The impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 7. For that, both the authorities below have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in determining the total income

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

TDS was claimed. The impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 7. For that, both the authorities below have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in determining the total income

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

TDS was claimed. The impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 7. For that, both the authorities below have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in determining the total income

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

TDS was claimed. The impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 7. For that, both the authorities below have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in determining the total income

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

TDS was claimed. The impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 7. For that, both the authorities below have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in determining the total income

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

TDS was claimed. The impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 7. For that, both the authorities below have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in determining the total income

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

TDS was claimed. The impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 7. For that, both the authorities below have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in determining the total income

PRATAP CHANDRA SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

TDS was claimed. The impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 7. For that, both the authorities below have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in determining the total income