BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

18 results for “TDS”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai978Delhi754Bangalore336Kolkata283Chennai185Ahmedabad170Jaipur127Karnataka117Raipur107Pune97Indore86Chandigarh72Cochin64Surat61Hyderabad55Visakhapatnam44Lucknow34Rajkot22Agra20Nagpur20Cuttack18Amritsar17Patna14Guwahati14Dehradun9Varanasi7Ranchi6Panaji6Allahabad4Telangana3Jabalpur3Jodhpur2SC2Calcutta1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 234E36Section 200A18Section 20112Disallowance9Addition to Income9Section 2638TDS8Section 274E6Section 2346Deduction

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-

ITA 174/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133BSection 144Section 250Section 40

TDS on account of advertisement expenses also could not be explained by the assessee. There was loss on investment on sale of shares and deposits on which interest was charged and the notional interest was added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same

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-

6
Section 404
Section 133(6)4
ITA 173/CTK/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133BSection 144Section 250Section 40

TDS on account of advertisement expenses also could not be explained by the assessee. There was loss on investment on sale of shares and deposits on which interest was charged and the notional interest was added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same

SHIV KUMAR PODDAR,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-2, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 34Section 40Section 41Section 44A

section 41 of the Act. So, the CTO has yet to assessee the sales turn-over of the appellant and hence, can not be treated as accepted by the Sales Tax Authorities. (ii) As per provision u/s 44AA (2)(i) of the Act, she is required to maintain; such books of accounts and other documents as may enable

SWARNA DAS,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 24/CTK/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 34Section 40Section 41Section 44A

section 41 of the Act. So, the CTO has yet to assessee the sales turn-over of the appellant and hence, can not be treated as accepted by the Sales Tax Authorities. (ii) As per provision u/s 44AA (2)(i) of the Act, she is required to maintain; such books of accounts and other documents as may enable

ACIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 389/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

133(6) of IT.Act, 1961 were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remark “not known/left/addressee refused.” In some cases, commission agents did not mention anything about the agents and only pleaded that they have executed work only for Indrani Patnaik. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer observed that it is seen that while making payment towards commission, assessee has deducted

INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 393/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

133(6) of IT.Act, 1961 were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remark “not known/left/addressee refused.” In some cases, commission agents did not mention anything about the agents and only pleaded that they have executed work only for Indrani Patnaik. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer observed that it is seen that while making payment towards commission, assessee has deducted

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 365/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (
Section 263

133 days. It was mentioned that no reasons for the delay in filing appeal between the Cyclone ‘Fani’ and the filing of the appeal after 4 ½ months has been explained. It was the submission that Shri A.K.Swain, CA has not filed any affidavit. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case

LUCKY OFFSET PVT. LTD. ,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 396/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.395 To 400/Ctk/2019 (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-1) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-2) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)(Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016) (Quarter-4) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-4) 26Q Lucky Offset Private Ltd. Vs. Ito(Tds)-1, Bhubaneswar D/24, Industrial Estate, Berhampur-760008 Pan No. Aaacl 3866 E, Tanno. : Bbnl00231A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Padhy, Fca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Six Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar All Dated 06.09.2019 For The 1St, 2Nd, 3Rd & 4Th Quarters For The Financial Year 2014-2015 Relevant To Assessment Year 2015-2016 & For The 3Rd & 4Th,Quarters For The Financial Year 2015-2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In All These Appeals Relating To Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S.274E Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Filed The Tds Return For The Respective Quarters Belatedly, Therefore, The 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Padhy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234Section 234ESection 274E

133 26,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-3 15.01.2016 02.04.2016 78 15,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-4 16.05.2016 12.08.2016 88 17,600/- 4. Against the above demand raised u/s.234E of the Act, by the CPC(TDS), the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals of the assessee holding that the assessee has filed quarterly

LUCKY OFFSET PVT. LTD. ,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 398/CTK/2019[2015-16 (Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2020

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.395 To 400/Ctk/2019 (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-1) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-2) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)(Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016) (Quarter-4) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-4) 26Q Lucky Offset Private Ltd. Vs. Ito(Tds)-1, Bhubaneswar D/24, Industrial Estate, Berhampur-760008 Pan No. Aaacl 3866 E, Tanno. : Bbnl00231A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Padhy, Fca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Six Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar All Dated 06.09.2019 For The 1St, 2Nd, 3Rd & 4Th Quarters For The Financial Year 2014-2015 Relevant To Assessment Year 2015-2016 & For The 3Rd & 4Th,Quarters For The Financial Year 2015-2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In All These Appeals Relating To Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S.274E Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Filed The Tds Return For The Respective Quarters Belatedly, Therefore, The 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Padhy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234Section 234ESection 274E

133 26,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-3 15.01.2016 02.04.2016 78 15,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-4 16.05.2016 12.08.2016 88 17,600/- 4. Against the above demand raised u/s.234E of the Act, by the CPC(TDS), the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals of the assessee holding that the assessee has filed quarterly

LUCKY OFFSET PVT. LTD. ,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 400/CTK/2019[2016-17 (Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2020

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.395 To 400/Ctk/2019 (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-1) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-2) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)(Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016) (Quarter-4) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-4) 26Q Lucky Offset Private Ltd. Vs. Ito(Tds)-1, Bhubaneswar D/24, Industrial Estate, Berhampur-760008 Pan No. Aaacl 3866 E, Tanno. : Bbnl00231A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Padhy, Fca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Six Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar All Dated 06.09.2019 For The 1St, 2Nd, 3Rd & 4Th Quarters For The Financial Year 2014-2015 Relevant To Assessment Year 2015-2016 & For The 3Rd & 4Th,Quarters For The Financial Year 2015-2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In All These Appeals Relating To Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S.274E Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Filed The Tds Return For The Respective Quarters Belatedly, Therefore, The 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Padhy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234Section 234ESection 274E

133 26,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-3 15.01.2016 02.04.2016 78 15,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-4 16.05.2016 12.08.2016 88 17,600/- 4. Against the above demand raised u/s.234E of the Act, by the CPC(TDS), the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals of the assessee holding that the assessee has filed quarterly

LUCKY OFFSET PVT. LTD. ,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 395/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.395 To 400/Ctk/2019 (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-1) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-2) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)(Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016) (Quarter-4) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-4) 26Q Lucky Offset Private Ltd. Vs. Ito(Tds)-1, Bhubaneswar D/24, Industrial Estate, Berhampur-760008 Pan No. Aaacl 3866 E, Tanno. : Bbnl00231A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Padhy, Fca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Six Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar All Dated 06.09.2019 For The 1St, 2Nd, 3Rd & 4Th Quarters For The Financial Year 2014-2015 Relevant To Assessment Year 2015-2016 & For The 3Rd & 4Th,Quarters For The Financial Year 2015-2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In All These Appeals Relating To Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S.274E Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Filed The Tds Return For The Respective Quarters Belatedly, Therefore, The 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Padhy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234Section 234ESection 274E

133 26,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-3 15.01.2016 02.04.2016 78 15,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-4 16.05.2016 12.08.2016 88 17,600/- 4. Against the above demand raised u/s.234E of the Act, by the CPC(TDS), the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals of the assessee holding that the assessee has filed quarterly

LUCKY OFFSET PVT. LTD. ,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 399/CTK/2019[2016-17 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2020

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.395 To 400/Ctk/2019 (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-1) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-2) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)(Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016) (Quarter-4) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-4) 26Q Lucky Offset Private Ltd. Vs. Ito(Tds)-1, Bhubaneswar D/24, Industrial Estate, Berhampur-760008 Pan No. Aaacl 3866 E, Tanno. : Bbnl00231A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Padhy, Fca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Six Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar All Dated 06.09.2019 For The 1St, 2Nd, 3Rd & 4Th Quarters For The Financial Year 2014-2015 Relevant To Assessment Year 2015-2016 & For The 3Rd & 4Th,Quarters For The Financial Year 2015-2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In All These Appeals Relating To Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S.274E Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Filed The Tds Return For The Respective Quarters Belatedly, Therefore, The 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Padhy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234Section 234ESection 274E

133 26,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-3 15.01.2016 02.04.2016 78 15,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-4 16.05.2016 12.08.2016 88 17,600/- 4. Against the above demand raised u/s.234E of the Act, by the CPC(TDS), the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals of the assessee holding that the assessee has filed quarterly

LUCKY OFFSET PVT. LTD. ,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 397/CTK/2019[2015-16(Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2020

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.395 To 400/Ctk/2019 (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-1) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)( Quarter-2) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016)(Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2015-2016) (Quarter-4) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-3) 26Q (Ay:2016-2017) (Quarter-4) 26Q Lucky Offset Private Ltd. Vs. Ito(Tds)-1, Bhubaneswar D/24, Industrial Estate, Berhampur-760008 Pan No. Aaacl 3866 E, Tanno. : Bbnl00231A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Padhy, Fca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Six Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar All Dated 06.09.2019 For The 1St, 2Nd, 3Rd & 4Th Quarters For The Financial Year 2014-2015 Relevant To Assessment Year 2015-2016 & For The 3Rd & 4Th,Quarters For The Financial Year 2015-2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In All These Appeals Relating To Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S.274E Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Filed The Tds Return For The Respective Quarters Belatedly, Therefore, The 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Padhy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 200ASection 201Section 234Section 234ESection 274E

133 26,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-3 15.01.2016 02.04.2016 78 15,600/- 2015-2016 26Q-4 16.05.2016 12.08.2016 88 17,600/- 4. Against the above demand raised u/s.234E of the Act, by the CPC(TDS), the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals of the assessee holding that the assessee has filed quarterly

DCIT, ROURKELA vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD., ROURKELA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 236/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri D.Pati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)

133(6) of IT.Act, 1961 were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remark “not known/left/addressee refused.” In some cases, letters issued were served but no communication has been received. The Assessing Officer observed that 22 buyers have stated that they had made direct purchases from M/s. Tarini Minerals Pvt Ltd., of Rs.1,98,61,740/- , six buyers have refused

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

133(6) to said company at its registered address to confirm the investment and explain the sources of said investment but there was no compliance. In response, only the confirmation from Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited was filed. The A.O. was constrained to issue summons u/s.131 of the Act to the director of said company and his statement was recorded

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

ITA 397/CTK/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Section 143(3)

TDS and maturity of FDR on the basis of statement/bank advice given by bank . This will clearly explain the method of accounting followed by the 28 Mah anadi Coalf ield Ltyd., assessee in respect of FDRs and interest thereon. It is pertinent to mention here that in the immediately preceding and succeeding financial years also

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 339/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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) ..

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 14A

133 b) Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. M/s Larsen & Turbo Ltd. ITA No. 421/2015 dated 06.11.2017 c) Rajasthan High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Sankalp International in ITA No. 319/2017 20. Contra, ld. DR relied on the order of AO. 21. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 133(6)Section 68

TDS on the interest payments and the lenders had also disclosed the same in their returns of income for the assessment year 2021-22 onwards. Ld AR also placed before us the copies of the bank accounts, returns of income, computation of total income, balance sheet of the loan creditors as also their ledger accounts for the assessment year