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/-

221 from such person, principal officer or company unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person or principal officer or company, as the case may be, has without good and sufficient reasons failed to deduct and pay the tax. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company

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(1

M/S. SARADA NIVAS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

TDS of Rs.955 before the date of filing of return in accordance with section 140A(1) of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings u/s.140A(3) of the Act was initiated by issuing notice u/s.221(1) of the Act. Since the directors of the assessee company were busy in arranging funds for liquidation of bank loans, no appearance was made

M?S.SARADA NIVAS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

TDS of Rs.955 before the date of filing of return in accordance with section 140A(1) of the Act. Thereafter, penalty proceedings u/s.140A(3) of the Act was initiated by issuing notice u/s.221(1) of the Act. Since the directors of the assessee company were busy in arranging funds for liquidation of bank loans, no appearance was made

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NILACHAL CARBO METALICKS PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year:2005-06 Acit, Circle 1(2), Vs. Nilachal Carbo Metalicks Bhubaneswar. Private Limited., Plot No.73 & 74/353, Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Aajpu 6205 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

221 and Sections 271C and 276B of the Income-tax Act. The AO may also report any matter of non-deduction of taxes as mandated under the statute to the office of the C1T (TDS), Bhubaneswar and take other necessary action against the Appellant, including the levying of interest and/or penalty, if and as applicable.” 11. The appeal is allowed

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

221 ITR 239 (All), wherein, it has been held that “whether where deposits had been made by partners on very first day when partnership firm came into existence, onus was on the partners to explain the source of deposits made and if they failed to do so, amount could be added in their hands only and not in the hands