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

section 40A(3) in respect of withdrawals from the bank by the assessee to an extent of Rs.3,62,71,663/- and on account of bogus labour payments to the extent of Rs.6,89,19,336/- would stand deleted. So also, the interest receivable to the extent of Rs.6,47,706/-. We are not going into the issue of double

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

TDS deducted 1. Contract works 2,89,34,855.45 or 5,78,700/- Partly disclosed 2,89,34,856 u/s.194C (Rs.2,40,55,730 2. Payment on transfer 56,80,820.90 or 1,13,625/- The AO did not Of immovable property56,80,821 u/s.194 IA enquiry the detai- ls of the proper- ty against which such tax was deducted

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

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) ..

TDS deducted and deposited by the assessee. We, however, on perusal of details of advertisement and publicity at pages 178 to 249 of the paper book showing list of expenses of Rs.9,54,500/-, find that the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source on the applicable expenses. Therefore, no disallowance was called for u/s40

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) ..

TDS deducted and deposited by the assessee. We, however, on perusal of details of advertisement and publicity at pages 178 to 249 of the paper book showing list of expenses of Rs.9,54,500/-, find that the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source on the applicable expenses. Therefore, no disallowance was called for u/s40

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) ..

TDS deducted and deposited by the assessee. We, however, on perusal of details of advertisement and publicity at pages 178 to 249 of the paper book showing list of expenses of Rs.9,54,500/-, find that the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source on the applicable expenses. Therefore, no disallowance was called for u/s40

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , SECOND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, AINTHAPALI vs. SHIVA CEMENT LIMITED, ROURKELA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the COs of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shrirajesh Kumar, Am

40a(i)(a) read with section 195J of the Acton the basis of audited statement of accounts furnished by the assessee. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has incurred consultancy charges on various dates when no TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,SECOND FLOOR vs. SHIVA CEMENT LIMITED, ROURKELA, SUNDARGARH

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the COs of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shrirajesh Kumar, Am

40a(i)(a) read with section 195J of the Acton the basis of audited statement of accounts furnished by the assessee. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has incurred consultancy charges on various dates when no TDS

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

SURESH KUMAR SOMANI,MALKANGIRI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BERHAMPUR, BERHAMPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.55 /Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suresh Kumar Somani…………………………………................……….……Appellant Motu Road, Korukonda B.O, Alur, Malkangiri (Odisha), Odissa - 764045.. [Pan: Acxps8005Q] Vs. Acit, Berhampur………....………..…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. B. Doshi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 228 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noticed that assessee received goods from Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and claimed TDS

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