ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Salil Kapoor and Bibhu Jain, Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 25/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : The revenue has filed two appeals against the separate

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Salil Kapoor and Bibhu Jain, Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 25/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : The revenue has filed two appeals against the separate

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/-

B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income

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

b. That the denial/rejection of the claim of Rs.7,28,75,325/- in respect of Provision for Leave Salary (Encashment) by the lower authorities is arbitrary, erroneous and bad in law in view of the 'validity of the amendments made by Finance Act, 2001 by insertion of subsection (f) to section 43B of the Act' having been struck down

SUBHASHREE ENTERPRISES,SAMBALPUR vs. ACIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 40A(3) of the Act and there is existing of oral agreement between the assessee and the truck drivers/owners. He further held that the arguments that in this case truck dalals are engaged and has relied on certain case laws to contend that no TDS was required to be deducted u/s.194C of the Act is an afterthought. He observed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

TDS. However, since the assessee is a co- operative bank, therefore, this exemption is not applicable to it. He further stated that from 1.6.2015, this anomaly has been removed and it is clearly provided that the cooperative banks are not eligible for this exemption. He accordingly, submitted that the assessee bank has not deducted tax at source on the payment

MGM MINERALS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

b) above, the aforesaid Rs.! ,20,36,869/being the closing balance of the aforesaid Party Accounts the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer as income of the assessee and confirming the addition of the same Rs.l,20,36,869/- by the learned CIT(Appeals) is contrary to facts, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous, bad in law and legally untenable. 3.Addition/ Disallowances

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MGM MINERALS LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

b) above, the aforesaid Rs.! ,20,36,869/being the closing balance of the aforesaid Party Accounts the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer as income of the assessee and confirming the addition of the same Rs.l,20,36,869/- by the learned CIT(Appeals) is contrary to facts, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous, bad in law and legally untenable. 3.Addition/ Disallowances

MGM MINERALS LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

b) above, the aforesaid Rs.! ,20,36,869/being the closing balance of the aforesaid Party Accounts the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer as income of the assessee and confirming the addition of the same Rs.l,20,36,869/- by the learned CIT(Appeals) is contrary to facts, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous, bad in law and legally untenable. 3.Addition/ Disallowances

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.61/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S Orissa State Civil Bhubaneswar Supplies Corporation Ltd Unit-8,Gopabandhu Nagar Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaaco 2570 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

2) and not u/s. 1941 and no case was made by AO that TDS was not deposited with Government account- Section 40(a)(ia) does not treat assessee as defaulter where there was shortfall in deduction-lf there was any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to taxability of any item or nature of payments falling under various

MAHANADI METAL AND CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.496/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010 - 2011) M/S Mahanadi Metal & Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Chemicals Private Limited, T/4/26/Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaccm 4844 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Parimal Kumar Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A), Sambalpur, Dated 04.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Not Justified In Holding The Nature Of Expenses Of S/ 957144 Under The Head Commission Instead Of Contract Work. (Para 4). 2. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Understanding The Accounting Entry Of Discount Of Rs. 16,91,687 & Wrongly Treated The Bogus Sundry Creditor. (Para8) 3. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Not Justified In Rejection Of Additional Evidence & Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 999390 For Non-Submission Of Vat Return, (Para-9) 4. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Unjustified For Not Sending For Remand The Case & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2799978. 2 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income

2% on the commission payments made to Shri Khagesh Patel. The AO analysed the provisions of Section 194H and also refer to Chapter XVII-B. The AO also noticed that the assessee has made sales to reputed concerns of Rs.9,45,96,837/- which has been incorporated in the order of the AO. The AO further noticed that in many

SHRI DILIP KUMAR NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 15. According to the CIT(A), the assessee has paid wages of Rs.3,05,26,985/- to M/s. Sumasankar Sponge Iron (P) Ltd. . The assessee was liable to deduct tax u/s.194C of the Act, which he failed to do. The assessee explained that M/s. Sumasankar Sponge Iron (P) Ltd. was not a labour

REGIONAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.94/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009 Regional College Of Engineering & Vs. Ito Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar Management, Plot No.18, Sector-A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. : Aaaar 1386 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-2009, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Allowing The Appeal Of The Appellant Against The Order Of The Learned Ao Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 15.10.2014 . 2. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Not Accepting That The Denial Of "Emption To A Charitable Trust Granted Registration U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act Is A Mistake Apparent From Record As Envisaged U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That, The Learned Cit (A) Has Committed Serious Error In Holding That The Mistake Of Disallowance For Violation Of Provision Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record In The Case Of A Charitable Trust Registered U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act.

TDS for sum of Rs.3,06,457/- and the Ground No.1 as raised by the assessee stands allowed. 8. In addition to the above, for the sake of clarity, we would like to reproduce Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as under :- Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 11. (1) Subject

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

b) But it was noticed that in its P&L account, the assessee had partially disclosed the "gross receipts from contract works" at Rs.2,40,55,730/-as against actual receipts of Rs.2,89,34,856/-. Thus, the assessee had suppressed contract receipts to the tune of Rs.48,79,126/- (Rs.2,89,34,856 - Rs.2

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