NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 National National Aluminium Aluminium Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(2), Company Limited., Nalco Company Limited., Nalco Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhawan, Bhawan, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacn 7449 M (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca & Shri P. Venugopal Rao, Ca Venugopal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

233 in regard to disallowance u/s.43B as follows: “9. From 3CD, it is found that an amount of Rs.27,95,3,824/- is not paid on or before the due date as specified under section 43B of the Act. However, in the computation of total income you have disallowed Rs.20,9,64,656/- only. Please explain

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

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

M/S. M.G.MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-1, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14 M.G.Mohanty., 2 ., 2-A, Forest Park, Vs. Acit (Tds- -1), Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aaffm 2127 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat B.K.Mohapatra/A.K.Sabat, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Addl. Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10 10/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 17.2.2015 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

TDS) by ignoring the voluminous paper book containing the documents, supportings and nous paper book containing the documents, supportings and nous paper book containing the documents, supportings and evidence filed before him, is against the principles of natural justice, evidence filed before him, is against the principles of natural justice, evidence filed before him, is against the principles of natural