VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, TDS, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

TDS u/s.194J of the Act and, accordingly, is not in default under section 201(1) and under section 201(1A) of the Act. For this proposition, ld A.R. relied on various judicial pronouncements including the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd and others, 185 taxmann 583, which was pronounced

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

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

148/- as detailed below is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and hence should have been deleted by the learned CIT(A) as the genuineness is not in doubt. Non-deduction of TDS is a separate issue. a) Commission payment to DLDS Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- b) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- c) Audit Fees

M/S BSN JOSHI & SONS LTD,KHURDA vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2003-2004

148 of the Act along with assessment order and demand notice when the appellant has disclosed all material of facts truly and fully before the learned Assessing Officer in the return of income & during the course of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4. That, the learned CIT (A) has committed serious error by confirming the addition

ITO, KHURDA vs. BULARAM DALAI, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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 (3) of the circular issued

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS refund claim for that year of ₹ 12,047/- due to failure to file Form No. 10 within the due date of filing the return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that the delay in uploading Form No. 10 cannot lead to disallowance of the amount actually set apart

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS refund claim for that year of ₹ 12,047/- due to failure to file Form No. 10 within the due date of filing the return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that the delay in uploading Form No. 10 cannot lead to disallowance of the amount actually set apart

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

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, not being tax as defined u/s.2(43) of the 1.T Act, 1961 and compensatory in nature is allowable u/s.37 of the IT Act, 1961. (2.10).Assessee itself denies to be charged interest u/s 234B and u/s.234C of the LT Act.1961 which may be kindly be held accordingly. (2.11). Assessee itself denies to be imposed penalty u/s.271

PANCHANAN PRADHAN,KHURDA vs. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.10/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Panchanan Pradhan, Vs. Ito, Khurda Ward, Ashok Nagar, 2Nd Lane, Khurda Balugaon, Khurda स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Ajhpp 4713 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 06.09.2016, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Quashing The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Which Is Unjust, Illegal, Arbitrary, Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Herein After Referred As 'The Act') & Has Been Passed In Gross Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Without Having Any Reasons On The Self Same Facts, Which Has Been Considered By The Learned Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act. 3. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Quashing The Assessment Order Wherein The Learned Assessing Officer Has Failed To Prove That The Alleged Income Escaped Owing To Failure On The Part Of The Appellant.

TDS of Rs.1,98,162/- has been shown as current asset in the Balance Sheet which led to suppression of asset. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to Tax has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.7,10,295/-(Rs.5,50,000/- + Rs.1,60,295/-) within the meaning of Sec.147

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA SPONGE IRON AND STEEL LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

148. Now coming to the merits of the deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. A perusal of the provisions of section 80IA(4) of the Act shows that in the explanation 'infrastructure facility' has been specified to mean a road including a toll road, a bridge or a rail system. Admittedly, the assessee is doing the business of development

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

148/- made under the head “ depreciation claimed on misc. assets”. 13. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the ld CIT (A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s claim of depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets insofar as the assesse was unable to prove or specify the misc. assets on which the depreciation was being claimed