DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SRI DIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1(1), Vs. Sri Dipendra Bahadur Singh, Sri Dipendra Bahadur Singh, Cuttack Hudisahi, Joda, Keonjhar Hudisahi, Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. No.Adjps 5869 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 6 /4 4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

section 194A(3)(iii) and the Pr. CIT, Cuttack in his order u/s. 263 dt. 08/03/2016 had accepted this. However, in spite of this the AO in the order u/s. 263/143(3] dt. 31/10/2016 added an amount of Rs. 8,54,149/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

149 51,54,366 2,02,535 11,82,684 ARSS (JV) 2. M/s SBEPL- 13,55,52,489 24,52,354 8,55,00,000 33,77,855 58,30,209 GRIL (JV) Total 17,51,37,632 34,32,503 9,06,54,366 ^35,80,390 70,12,893 7 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

149 51,54,366 2,02,535 11,82,684 ARSS (JV) 2. M/s SBEPL- 13,55,52,489 24,52,354 8,55,00,000 33,77,855 58,30,209 GRIL (JV) Total 17,51,37,632 34,32,503 9,06,54,366 ^35,80,390 70,12,893 7 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

149 51,54,366 2,02,535 11,82,684 ARSS (JV) 2. M/s SBEPL- 13,55,52,489 24,52,354 8,55,00,000 33,77,855 58,30,209 GRIL (JV) Total 17,51,37,632 34,32,503 9,06,54,366 ^35,80,390 70,12,893 7 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

149 51,54,366 2,02,535 11,82,684 ARSS (JV) 2. M/s SBEPL- 13,55,52,489 24,52,354 8,55,00,000 33,77,855 58,30,209 GRIL (JV) Total 17,51,37,632 34,32,503 9,06,54,366 ^35,80,390 70,12,893 7 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

149 51,54,366 2,02,535 11,82,684 ARSS (JV) 2. M/s SBEPL- 13,55,52,489 24,52,354 8,55,00,000 33,77,855 58,30,209 GRIL (JV) Total 17,51,37,632 34,32,503 9,06,54,366 ^35,80,390 70,12,893 7 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

149 51,54,366 2,02,535 11,82,684 ARSS (JV) 2. M/s SBEPL- 13,55,52,489 24,52,354 8,55,00,000 33,77,855 58,30,209 GRIL (JV) Total 17,51,37,632 34,32,503 9,06,54,366 ^35,80,390 70,12,893 7 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

149 51,54,366 2,02,535 11,82,684 ARSS (JV) 2. M/s SBEPL- 13,55,52,489 24,52,354 8,55,00,000 33,77,855 58,30,209 GRIL (JV) Total 17,51,37,632 34,32,503 9,06,54,366 ^35,80,390 70,12,893 7 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320

ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

TDS was claimed. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed direct expenses of Rs.25,97,41,438/- i.e. the amount equivalent to the gross receipts of the assessee-JV. The said amount was paid to three Joint Ventures constituents who had executed the work

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

TDS was claimed. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed direct expenses of Rs.25,97,41,438/- i.e. the amount equivalent to the gross receipts of the assessee-JV. The said amount was paid to three Joint Ventures constituents who had executed the work

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

TDS without considering the ground reality of the facts. The assessee has saved working capital which has more interest than the above. Hence the addition is liable to be quashed. 6. That the Appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Bench to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal, submit

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.

section 127(1) and (2), the requirement of granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, wherever it is possible to do so is mandatory. It was the submission that the assessment order being passed by an officer other than the assessee’s original Assessing Officer, especially when the file has been transferred without granting the assessee an opportunity