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

2)(iii). 8 .Without prejudice to grounds of appeal no.5,6,7, it is objected that CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.47,61,689/- made by the AO under section 14A r.w.r 80 without appreciating the fact that disallowance under section 14A r.w.r can not exceed the total exempt income, thus assessee prays restriction of the disallowance under

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

7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act alongside provisions of the Employees‟ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (especially Regulation 38 of the Employees‟ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952) and the provisions of the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948. The AO had brought

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/-

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/- 2 4) That it is not correct to say that the amendment to second provision to section 40(a)(ia) with effect from 1.4.2013 is not applicable. It is settled

UTKAL GRAMYA/ GRAMEEN BANK,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.190 To 192/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Utkal Gramya/Grameen Bank, Vs. Ito(Tds), Sambalpur Dhanupalli, Dist-Sambalpur-768005 Tan No. : Bbnb 00759 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty 9 ITA Nos.190-192/CTK/2019 is prescribed Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay, if the assessee proves that there

UTKAL GRAMYA/ GRAMEEN BANK,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.190 To 192/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Utkal Gramya/Grameen Bank, Vs. Ito(Tds), Sambalpur Dhanupalli, Dist-Sambalpur-768005 Tan No. : Bbnb 00759 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty 9 ITA Nos.190-192/CTK/2019 is prescribed Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay, if the assessee proves that there

UTKAL GRAMYA/ GRAMEEN BANK,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.190 To 192/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Utkal Gramya/Grameen Bank, Vs. Ito(Tds), Sambalpur Dhanupalli, Dist-Sambalpur-768005 Tan No. : Bbnb 00759 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty 9 ITA Nos.190-192/CTK/2019 is prescribed Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay, if the assessee proves that there

ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. BISWAJIT DAS, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

2(29BA), but sub-clause (b) of this section, in our opinion, is clearly applicable in the case of the Assessee. In view of the aforesaid discussion and following the aforesaid decision of the Panaji Bench of this Tribunal, we hold that the Assessee is engaged in manufacturing. Since the exemption u/s 10B was denied to the Assessee mainly holding

BISWAJIT DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

2(29BA), but sub-clause (b) of this section, in our opinion, is clearly applicable in the case of the Assessee. In view of the aforesaid discussion and following the aforesaid decision of the Panaji Bench of this Tribunal, we hold that the Assessee is engaged in manufacturing. Since the exemption u/s 10B was denied to the Assessee mainly holding

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

7. That the Authorities below would have allowed the total credit of TDS. 8. That the authorities below would have accepted the returned income. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. In addition to the above grounds of appeal

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

7 and uploaded Form No. 10 on 30.09.2016. The CPC, vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11(2) of the Act by making an addition of ₹ 10,45,000/- and raising tax liability of ₹ 1,82,680/- and tax demand of ₹ 1,70,633/- after adjustment of TDS refund claim for that year

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

7 and uploaded Form No. 10 on 30.09.2016. The CPC, vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11(2) of the Act by making an addition of ₹ 10,45,000/- and raising tax liability of ₹ 1,82,680/- and tax demand of ₹ 1,70,633/- after adjustment of TDS refund claim for that year

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

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

TDS was to be deducted, then the decision favourable to the assessee should have been followed in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 (SC). 7. On the other hand, ld Departmental Representative relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

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

TDS is required to be made on "any other sum chargeable under the provisions this Act". Chargeability is relevant in this case. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme , Court in the case of CWT Vellis Bridge Gymkhan (1998) 229 ITR 1 (SC), if la person has not been brought in the ambit of Section by clear words, he nt4uPANCSWAP

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

TDS is required to be made on "any other sum chargeable under the provisions this Act". Chargeability is relevant in this 20 & ITA No.02/CTK/2014 case. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT Vellis Bridge Gymkhan (1998) 229 ITR 1 (SC), if a person has not been brought in the ambit of Section by clear

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

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

TDS is required to be made on "any other sum chargeable under the provisions this Act". Chargeability is relevant in this case. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme , Court in the case of CWT Vellis Bridge Gymkhan (1998) 229 ITR 1 (SC), if la person has not been brought in the ambit of Section by clear words, he nt4uPANCSWAP

M/S. POWERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.206/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Powerware India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 6A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp 1607 R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

7. I find that the disallowance has been made by the AO for Rs.2,07,642/- on the ground that no TDS was deducted by the assessee from the payments made u/s.194C and Section 194A of the Act. I find that 3 the CIT(A) has held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which

LATEST GENERATION ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 234E is set aside and fee levied u/s 243E in all the appeals are ordered to be deleted. However, the other adjustments made by the AO in the impugned intimation shall stand as such. “ Asse ssment Years: 2 01 3-1 4 &2 014 -15 7. In the present appeals before us the financial years involved