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

B.C. BHUYAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2014-15 B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle - Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, 1(1), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcb 3304 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /07/2023

TDS in respect of Director’s remuneration. v) addition of interest income as per 26AS 4. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) did not consider any of the submission made by the assessee and had blindly upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that in respect of issue of depreciation on shuttering materials

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

9 | 15 Assessment Year : 2014-15 (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

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, 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

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

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) ..

9,53,571/- which Ld. AO has disallowed based on his observation that there is a fall in extraction of Iron ore during the year. However, Ld. AO has not found any adversity in the genuineness of bills and vouchers filed by the assessee and without doing this exercise Ld. AO was not correct in making the disallowance. Under these

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) ..

9,53,571/- which Ld. AO has disallowed based on his observation that there is a fall in extraction of Iron ore during the year. However, Ld. AO has not found any adversity in the genuineness of bills and vouchers filed by the assessee and without doing this exercise Ld. AO was not correct in making the disallowance. Under these

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) ..

9,53,571/- which Ld. AO has disallowed based on his observation that there is a fall in extraction of Iron ore during the year. However, Ld. AO has not found any adversity in the genuineness of bills and vouchers filed by the assessee and without doing this exercise Ld. AO was not correct in making the disallowance. Under these

GITA DEVI GUPTA,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year :2017-18 Gita Devi Gupta, Pro. M/S. Gita Devi Gupta, Pro. M/S. Vs. Dcit, Assessment Circle Dcit, Assessment Circle D.D. Textiles, Nandi Sahi, D.D. Textiles, Nandi Sahi, 2(1), Cuttack 2(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aazpg 8154 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 7/8/ /2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 7/8 /8/2024 O R D E R

section 201(1) of the Act has been raised against the assessee on account of non-deduction of TDS. It was the submission that one of the person Shri R.K.Poddar had also appeared before the AO and his statement was recorded on 5.9.2019 wherein he has confirmed the business with the assessee and the receipt of commission. Ld AR further

M/S. BRAHMANI RIVER PELLETS LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Brahmani River Pellets M/S. Brahmani River Pellets Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Limited., 4Th Floor, Ipicol Limited., 4 Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar House, House, Janapath, Janapath, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccb 9418 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas B.K.Mahapatra, Cas Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

TDS on interest paid’ and in para 7.1.1, the issue was dropped. In para 7.2, he raises the issue of ‘applicability of section 40A(3) and in page 23, he mentions that the duty drawback is not specifically mentioned in the notes forming part of the accounts. He does not give any finding as to whether the figures and submissions

CHARANJIT SINGH GREWAL , C/O R K TULI AND ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS,11/37 OLD RAJINDER NAGAR,OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, ORISSA, CUTTACK ORISSA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.374/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Charanjit Singh Grewal, Vs The Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack C/O R K Tuli & Associates, Chartered Accountants, 11/37, Old Rajinder Nagar,Delhi-110060 Pan No. : Abvpg 6677 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Maneesh Upnejja & Baldev Raj, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2, Dated 28.04.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Learned Ar That A Synopsis Has Been Filed Which Is As Follows :- Before The Hon'Ble Itat-Cuttack Bench In The Matter Of : Sh. Charanjit Singh Grewal Pan : Abvpg-6677-K Assessment Year : 2018-19

40a(ia) r.w.s 194) of the Act to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. [Addition Rs.84,97,406 ]" 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the documents relating to withholding of taxes were filed as additional evidence. 3 7. During the course of discussion with Ld. CIT(A), it was brought to the notice