INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOY LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

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

TDS details thereof, which were filed by the assessee on 11.2.2010. The details of travelling and conveyance, commission under the head other selling expenses” were filed by the assessee vide letter dated 27.10.2010 & 18.11.2010 respectively. It was further submitted that in respect of the issue of disallowance under Section 43B of the Act, the assessee made adequate disclosure in Schedule

ITO, KHURDA vs. BULARAM DALAI, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

147 read with 148 of the Act cannot be initiated merely based on the audit report. An audit is principally intended for the purpose of satisfying the auditor with regard to sufficiency of rules and procedures prescribed for the purpose of securing an effective check on the assessment, collection and proper allocation of revenue. As per para

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs. M/S Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, In Appeal No.0403/2012-13, Dated 23.05.2013, Passed U/S.147/143(3)/250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether The Learned First Appellate Authority Was Justified In Relying On Writ Cases Ignoring The Fact That Specific Findings In Writ-Petitions Can Not Be Straightaway Applied To Other Cases. 2. Whether The Learned Appellate Authority Was Justified To Hold That There Is Change In Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Regarding Admissibility / Inadmissibility Of Expenditure While Proceeding U/S.147 Of The 1.T. Act,1961 As Compared To His Findings In The Original Assessment Order. 3. Whether The Ld. First Appellate Authority Was Justified To Delete The Disallowance Of Rs.696.10 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer Towards 'Prior Period Expenses', Totally Ignoring The Findings Of The Assessing Officer. 4. Whether The Learned First Appellate Authority Was Justified To Delete The Disallowance Of Rs.631.34 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer Towards `Unpaid Statutory Liability' Under Section 43B Of The I.T. Act,1961, Totally Ignoring The Findings Of The Assessing Officer.

Section 147 of the Act, which reads:- “Explanation 1.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso.” And also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. G.N.MOHANTY AND CO.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. G.N.Mohanty & Co., Plot Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Bhubaneswar. No.2060/2061,2062 S, Samatarpur Chhak, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aaefg 3478 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

TDS credit of Rs.1,74,926/-. So the assessee firm has suppressed balance receipt/income amounting to Rs.11,70,702.99 (Rs.31,58,934. – Rs.19,88,231.01).” P a g e 2 | 5 ITA No. 397/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year: 20 07- 08 7. It was further submitted by ld A.R. of the assessee that no new material had come

M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

TDS was being deducted, returns were filed by the loan creditors and even today, the same continues. It was the submission that the loan creditors also have PAN No., which are still existing and it no more lies in the mouth of the revenue to turn around and say that the transaction is bogus especially when nothing has been done

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Income-tax Act." In the instant case, the amounts have been paid towards purchase of raw material on principal to principal basis and the appellant has procured the goods from the non-resident seller at its own cost after making payments of custom duty, freight, handling charges etc. on CIF basis

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Income-tax Act." In the instant case, the amounts have been paid towards purchase of raw material on principal to principal basis and the appellant has procured the goods from the non-resident seller at its own cost after making payments of custom duty, freight, handling charges etc. on CIF basis

ODISHA BRIDGE & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS Certificates were given to him. 6. That the learned CIT(Appeal) invoked the provision of Section 263 although different alternatives were with him such as Section 147

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

RABINDRA KUMAR MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.300/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Rabindra Kumar Mohanty, Vs Ito, Ward-2(2), C/O Dr. Basudev Mishra, Bhubaneswar Plot No.3C/1, 1St Floor, Near Raj Bhawan Square, Unit-8, Bhubaneswar- 751012 Pan No. : Abxpm 8506 B (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate By िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date : 21/12/2021 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 22.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. This Appeal Itano.300/Ctk/2016 Was Dismissed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.08.2017 On Account Of Non- Appearance On The Part Of The Assessee. Thereafter The Assessee Took The Matter Before The Hon’Ble High Court & The Hon’Ble High Court In W.P.(C) No.2487 Of 2019, Vide

Section 147 of the Act was invalid. Accordingly, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessment 9. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the proposal given by the Audit to look into the matter of understatement of income is very well justified since the assessee

MAA JAGAT JANANI SEVA TRUST,NAMBIRA vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-2015 2015 Maa Maa Jagat Jagat Janani Janani Seva Seva Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Trust, At- -Nambira, Po: Income Income Tax, Tax, Exemption Exemption Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Circle, Bhubaneswar Circle, Bhubaneswar Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aadtm 1575 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 7.6.2023 In Appeal No.Nfac/2013 Nfac/2013-14/10180318 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not given any finding that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all materials facts necessary for its assessment originally. It was the submission that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

TDS: In view of above discussions including that of judicial precedents, it is requested kindly allow Rs.66,103/-being the interest on tax suffered by the deductor because such interest does not come under the definition of tax as defined u/s.2(43) and it is compensatory in nature and allowable u/s 37 of the I.T Act, 1961. (11). Grounds

RASMITA PANDA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiarasmita Panda, I.T.O., D/O- R C Panda, Kanehipur, Crri, Ward- 1(1), Vs. Cuttack-753006 (Odisha) Cuttack. Pan No. Dbupp 9233 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS has also been deducted on the said commission. It was the submission that the assessee filed her return in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) claiming expenses of 35% in respect of the earning of such income. It was the submission that the Assessing Rasmita Panda

SIBA NARAYAN ROUT,BHADRAK vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS has been deducted while making such payments. Therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act as per his best judgment. Since the payments attracted provisions of section 40(a)(ia] of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the hire charges paid amounting to Rs.1,18,15,509/-u/s.40(a)(ia)of of the Act. Asse ssment