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

iv.) In the case of Housing Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Addl CIT (101 taxmann.com 403), the assessee had claimed deduction on account of ad hoc provision of salary amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000. This deduction was claimed by the assessee on account of provision for revision of pay in the books of account. This claim for deduction

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

iv.) In the case of Housing Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Addl CIT (101 taxmann.com 403), the assessee had claimed deduction on account of ad hoc provision of salary amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000. This deduction was claimed by the assessee on account of provision for revision of pay in the books of account. This claim for deduction

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

iv.) In the case of Housing Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Addl CIT (101 taxmann.com 403), the assessee had claimed deduction on account of ad hoc provision of salary amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000. This deduction was claimed by the assessee on account of provision for revision of pay in the books of account. This claim for deduction

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

iv.) In the case of Housing Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Addl CIT (101 taxmann.com 403), the assessee had claimed deduction on account of ad hoc provision of salary amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000. This deduction was claimed by the assessee on account of provision for revision of pay in the books of account. This claim for deduction

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

iv.) In the case of Housing Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Addl CIT (101 taxmann.com 403), the assessee had claimed deduction on account of ad hoc provision of salary amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000. This deduction was claimed by the assessee on account of provision for revision of pay in the books of account. This claim for deduction

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

iv.) In the case of Housing Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Addl CIT (101 taxmann.com 403), the assessee had claimed deduction on account of ad hoc provision of salary amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000. This deduction was claimed by the assessee on account of provision for revision of pay in the books of account. This claim for deduction

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

iv.) In the case of Housing Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Addl CIT (101 taxmann.com 403), the assessee had claimed deduction on account of ad hoc provision of salary amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000. This deduction was claimed by the assessee on account of provision for revision of pay in the books of account. This claim for deduction

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

TDS u/s. 194A on interest paid to banks. Further, as regards the payment of interest to NBFCs the counsel submitted that this was paid to five NBFCs, namely; GE Capital, L & T Finance, Magma Fin. Crop. Ltd, Sree Equipment & Finance Ltd and Tata capital. With the exception of GE Capital, the counsel submitted certificates of an accountant [Form 26A) under

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

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

194A(3)(iii)(a) of the Act. Therefore, Ground No.1 of appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. 10. In Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee, the grievance is that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,07,744/- made u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the fact that same

BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA,ROURKELA vs. ITO(TDS), ROURKELA

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

3. ITA No.218/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,72,582/- Rs.34,597/- 4. ITA No.219/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.33,578/- Rs.2,686/- 5. ITA No.250/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,39,001/- Rs.26,410/- 6. ITA No.251/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.40,824/- Rs.2,858/- 4. Feeling aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) dismissed

LIC OF INDIA,ROURKELA vs. ITO(TDS), ROURKELA

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

3. ITA No.218/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,72,582/- Rs.34,597/- 4. ITA No.219/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.33,578/- Rs.2,686/- 5. ITA No.250/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,39,001/- Rs.26,410/- 6. ITA No.251/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.40,824/- Rs.2,858/- 4. Feeling aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) dismissed

BRANCH MANAGER, L I C OF INDIA,ROURKELA vs. ITO, ROURKELA

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

3. ITA No.218/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,72,582/- Rs.34,597/- 4. ITA No.219/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.33,578/- Rs.2,686/- 5. ITA No.250/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,39,001/- Rs.26,410/- 6. ITA No.251/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.40,824/- Rs.2,858/- 4. Feeling aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) dismissed

LIC OF INDIA,ROURKELA vs. ITO(TDS), ROURKELA

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

3. ITA No.218/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,72,582/- Rs.34,597/- 4. ITA No.219/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.33,578/- Rs.2,686/- 5. ITA No.250/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,39,001/- Rs.26,410/- 6. ITA No.251/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.40,824/- Rs.2,858/- 4. Feeling aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) dismissed

LIC OF INDIA,ROURKELA vs. ITO(TDS), ROURKELA, ROUKELA

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

3. ITA No.218/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,72,582/- Rs.34,597/- 4. ITA No.219/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.33,578/- Rs.2,686/- 5. ITA No.250/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,39,001/- Rs.26,410/- 6. ITA No.251/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.40,824/- Rs.2,858/- 4. Feeling aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) dismissed

PRAHALLAD BEHERA,ROURKELA vs. ITO(TDS),, ROURKELA

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

3. ITA No.218/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,72,582/- Rs.34,597/- 4. ITA No.219/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.33,578/- Rs.2,686/- 5. ITA No.250/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,39,001/- Rs.26,410/- 6. ITA No.251/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.40,824/- Rs.2,858/- 4. Feeling aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) dismissed

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

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