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 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

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

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on the payment of interest to PFC. 38. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was fairly covered in favour of the assessee by the Notification of CBDT in No.211/2006 dated 18.8.2006, wherein, in exercise of the power conferred under section 194A(3)(iii

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on the payment of interest to PFC. 38. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was fairly covered in favour of the assessee by the Notification of CBDT in No.211/2006 dated 18.8.2006, wherein, in exercise of the power conferred under section 194A(3)(iii

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on the payment of interest to PFC. 38. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was fairly covered in favour of the assessee by the Notification of CBDT in No.211/2006 dated 18.8.2006, wherein, in exercise of the power conferred under section 194A(3)(iii

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on the payment of interest to PFC. 38. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was fairly covered in favour of the assessee by the Notification of CBDT in No.211/2006 dated 18.8.2006, wherein, in exercise of the power conferred under section 194A(3)(iii

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on the payment of interest to PFC. 38. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was fairly covered in favour of the assessee by the Notification of CBDT in No.211/2006 dated 18.8.2006, wherein, in exercise of the power conferred under section 194A(3)(iii

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on the payment of interest to PFC. 38. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was fairly covered in favour of the assessee by the Notification of CBDT in No.211/2006 dated 18.8.2006, wherein, in exercise of the power conferred under section 194A(3)(iii

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on the payment of interest to PFC. 38. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was fairly covered in favour of the assessee by the Notification of CBDT in No.211/2006 dated 18.8.2006, wherein, in exercise of the power conferred under section 194A(3)(iii

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on the payment of interest to PFC. 38. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was fairly covered in favour of the assessee by the Notification of CBDT in No.211/2006 dated 18.8.2006, wherein, in exercise of the power conferred under section 194A(3)(iii

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS on the payment of interest to PFC. 38. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was fairly covered in favour of the assessee by the Notification of CBDT in No.211/2006 dated 18.8.2006, wherein, in exercise of the power conferred under section 194A(3)(iii

SUBHALAXMI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,NAYAGARH vs. JCIT, RAMGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

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

section 194A (3)(iii)(a) of the Act. 6. Ld Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest payment of Rs.1,22,547/- and audit fees of Rs.1,35,300/- as there are contrary decisions of different Hon’ble High Court on the issue that if there

M/S. NORTH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY OF ORISSA LTD.,BALASORE vs. DCIT (TDS-II), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Section 194A(f)(iii) of the Act and prayed for allowing the appeal. Contra, ld. DR relied on the orders of CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the main crux of the disputed issue is with respect to non-deduction of TDS by the assessee. Ld. AR’s contention

ARSS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATION CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-2013

194A of the Act. 13. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before us. 14. Before us, ld A.R. submitted that the assessee had already filed Form No.26A duly signed by the C.A. before the Assessing Officer. He submitted that all the recipient of interest are JVs where

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

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

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

3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has allowed credit of Rs.8311.51 lakhs as against total claim of Rs.9238.04 lakhs. 50. The CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit of total TDS as claimed on the basis of TDS certificates after verifying the same with NSDL following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s case

VIVEK AGARWAL,JHARSUGUDA vs. ITO, JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

194A which is against the spirit of law, is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and should be deleted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. For that learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct to confirm addition of Rs.2,80,126/- alleging undisclosed gross receipt from SEPCO which is wholly incorrect, is because