M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

26,55,66,961/- (as per the TDS certificates) and has received the remaining balance of Rs.24,16,95,998/- from the other contract works undertaken by the assessee company. He observed that the deduction u/s 801A of the Act would not be available to a person who executes a works contract entered into with an undertaking or enterprise

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

26,55,66,961/- (as per the TDS certificates) and has received the remaining balance of Rs.24,16,95,998/- from the other contract works undertaken by the assessee company. He observed that the deduction u/s 801A of the Act would not be available to a person who executes a works contract entered into with an undertaking or enterprise

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

26,55,66,961/- (as per the TDS certificates) and has received the remaining balance of Rs.24,16,95,998/- from the other contract works undertaken by the assessee company. He observed that the deduction u/s 801A of the Act would not be available to a person who executes a works contract entered into with an undertaking or enterprise

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

26,55,66,961/- (as per the TDS certificates) and has received the remaining balance of Rs.24,16,95,998/- from the other contract works undertaken by the assessee company. He observed that the deduction u/s 801A of the Act would not be available to a person who executes a works contract entered into with an undertaking or enterprise

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

26,55,66,961/- (as per the TDS certificates) and has received the remaining balance of Rs.24,16,95,998/- from the other contract works undertaken by the assessee company. He observed that the deduction u/s 801A of the Act would not be available to a person who executes a works contract entered into with an undertaking or enterprise

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

26,55,66,961/- (as per the TDS certificates) and has received the remaining balance of Rs.24,16,95,998/- from the other contract works undertaken by the assessee company. He observed that the deduction u/s 801A of the Act would not be available to a person who executes a works contract entered into with an undertaking or enterprise

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

26,55,66,961/- (as per the TDS certificates) and has received the remaining balance of Rs.24,16,95,998/- from the other contract works undertaken by the assessee company. He observed that the deduction u/s 801A of the Act would not be available to a person who executes a works contract entered into with an undertaking or enterprise

M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

26 IT(SS)A No.31-44/CTK/2022 & ITA No.109/CTK/2022 The proviso to section 153A states that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the six assessment years preceding the previous year in which the search is initiated or requisition is made. The use of the word 'shall' connotes that the assessment/reassessment is mandatory and will have to be made irrespective

ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 BHUABENSWAR, BHUBANESWAR

26 has also been issued by the\ndepartment in the case of the assessee which is shown at page 78 which\nreads as follows :-\nTDS TRACES\nData spalat 10-Aug-2018\nCentralized Processing Cell TDS Reconciliation Analysis and Correction Enabling System\nForm 26AS\nAnnual Tax Statement under Section

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

26. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that these were expenditures in respect of which, bills and vouchers had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that it is only on account of non- production of vouchers, expenditure was disallowed. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has held that no specific defect

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

26. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that these were expenditures in respect of which, bills and vouchers had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that it is only on account of non- production of vouchers, expenditure was disallowed. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has held that no specific defect

M/S. ODISHA HYDRO POWER CORPORATON LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

26. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that these were expenditures in respect of which, bills and vouchers had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that it is only on account of non- production of vouchers, expenditure was disallowed. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has held that no specific defect

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

26. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that these were expenditures in respect of which, bills and vouchers had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that it is only on account of non- production of vouchers, expenditure was disallowed. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has held that no specific defect

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

26. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that these were expenditures in respect of which, bills and vouchers had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that it is only on account of non- production of vouchers, expenditure was disallowed. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has held that no specific defect

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

26. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that these were expenditures in respect of which, bills and vouchers had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that it is only on account of non- production of vouchers, expenditure was disallowed. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has held that no specific defect

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

26. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that these were expenditures in respect of which, bills and vouchers had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that it is only on account of non- production of vouchers, expenditure was disallowed. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has held that no specific defect

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

26. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that these were expenditures in respect of which, bills and vouchers had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that it is only on account of non- production of vouchers, expenditure was disallowed. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has held that no specific defect

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

26. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that these were expenditures in respect of which, bills and vouchers had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that it is only on account of non- production of vouchers, expenditure was disallowed. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has held that no specific defect

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

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

26. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that these were expenditures in respect of which, bills and vouchers had not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that it is only on account of non- production of vouchers, expenditure was disallowed. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has held that no specific defect