NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

Section 194-I of the Act as has been held by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of GRIDCO vs. ACIT in ITA No.404/CTK/2011 order dated 07.11.2011. We have perused the observations of the CIT(A) in this regard and the found that the CIT(A) at para 7.1 has deleted the addition made u/s.40

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

Section 194-I of the Act as has been held by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of GRIDCO vs. ACIT in ITA No.404/CTK/2011 order dated 07.11.2011. We have perused the observations of the CIT(A) in this regard and the found that the CIT(A) at para 7.1 has deleted the addition made u/s.40

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

Section 194-I of the Act as has been held by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of GRIDCO vs. ACIT in ITA No.404/CTK/2011 order dated 07.11.2011. We have perused the observations of the CIT(A) in this regard and the found that the CIT(A) at para 7.1 has deleted the addition made u/s.40

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

Section 194-I of the Act as has been held by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of GRIDCO vs. ACIT in ITA No.404/CTK/2011 order dated 07.11.2011. We have perused the observations of the CIT(A) in this regard and the found that the CIT(A) at para 7.1 has deleted the addition made u/s.40

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

Section 194-I of the Act as has been held by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of GRIDCO vs. ACIT in ITA No.404/CTK/2011 order dated 07.11.2011. We have perused the observations of the CIT(A) in this regard and the found that the CIT(A) at para 7.1 has deleted the addition made u/s.40

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, TDS, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

45 (Chennai), wherein, it was held that the discount given was nothing but commission within the meaning of explanation (i) of Section 194H on which tax was deducible and since the assessee did not deduct tax under section 194H of the Act, the assessee was held defaulter within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act. 14. We have

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

45,000/- made by the AO on account of non- deduction of tax u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. 02 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law as well as on facts in ignoring the fact that Section 195 is applicable in the above case and hence provisions

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/-

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/- 2 4) That it is not correct to say that the amendment to second provision to section

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

45,000/- made by the AO on account of non- deduction of tax u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. 02 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law as well as on facts in ignoring the fact that Section 195 is applicable in the above case and hence provisions

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

TDS". If one reads the observation of the Supreme Court, the words "such sum" clearly indicate that the observation refers to a case of composite payment where the payer has a doubt regarding the inclusion of an amount in such payment which is exigible to tax in India. In our view, the above observations of this Court in Transmission Corpn

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

TDS 1% or 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

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

45,225/-. In the absence of any particulars, it cannot be said that there was no liability to deduct tax on that score. Law does not stipulate the existence of a written contract as a condition precedent for payment of TDS. The contract may be in writing or it may be oral but the liability to pay tax arises when

ADITYA MOHAPATRA,DHENKANAL vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.155/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Sri Aditya Mohapatra, Vs. Pr.Cit-2, Bhubaneswar Prop.: Orissa Motors, Kujakanta, Main Road, Dhenkanal. Pan No. : Aaacl 6593 N (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Damodar Pati, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam,Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/09/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Act By The Pr.Cit-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 21.03.2016 For The A.Y.2012-2013. 2. Earlier This Appeal Was Disposed Off By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29.08.2017. Thereafter The Assessee Challenged The Order Of The Tribunal Before The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court & The Hon’Ble High Court Vide Order Dated 21.03.2018 Passed In W.P.(C)No.22608 Of 2017 Set Aside The Order Of The Tribunal To Pass Fresh Order Directing The Assessee To File The Documents As He Wants. Accordingly, The Appeal Of The Assessee Restored To Its Original Number & Finally Heard With The Consent Of Both The Parties.

45 taxmann.com 183 (Allahabad): iv) Qatar Airways [2012] 20 taxmann.com 598 (Bombay); and v) Chief Treasury Officer Vs. UOI [2013] 37 taxmann.com 391 (Allahabad) 11. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR submitted that the assessee is liable for TDS on payment made to the retailers because he has paid incentive and commissions and incentives on SIM cards

THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-II, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 194-I of the Act, the expenditure of Rs.9,45,43,340/- paid to M/s. Sunderlal Mohanlal Sarda and Others was actually for premium for transfer of mining lease whereas the law does not allow such payment for which no formal agreement has been entered that no TDS

THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-II, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 194-I of the Act, the expenditure of Rs.9,45,43,340/- paid to M/s. Sunderlal Mohanlal Sarda and Others was actually for premium for transfer of mining lease whereas the law does not allow such payment for which no formal agreement has been entered that no TDS

SK. GOLAM MUSTAFA,JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sk.Golam Mustafa Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack New Siaria, Trijanga, Rehabilitation Colony, Danagadi, Jajpur-755026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akgpm 6161 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 27.02.2018 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0005/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Cuttack Confirming The Addition Of Rs 2,35,127/- Made By The Acit,Circle-L(L) Cuttack Under Section 40A(3) Of It Act 1961 In Computing The Business Income Of The Assessee Is Arbitrary To Law & The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Incometax (Appeats),Cuttack Is Not Justified In Disallowing The Professional Fees Paid Amounting To Rs 6,68,680/- On The Ground That No Tds Has Been Deducted From Such Payments. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Contract Work Under The Name & Style Of Royal Enterprises

TDS has not been deduced in respect of professional fees u/s.194J, therefore, ld.DR prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On the first disputed issue of disallowance u/s.40A(3), ld. AR submitted that the provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act does not apply in the present case

SUBHALAXMI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,NAYAGARH vs. JCIT, RAMGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

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

section 194C(5) of the Act, which provides that in such cases no TDS was to be deducted from the payments made for transportation of goods and, therefore, no disallowance can be made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS from such payments. We find that the assessee before the CIT(A) relied on the decision

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

45,000/- and raising tax liability of ₹ 1,82,680/- and tax demand of ₹ 1,70,633/- after adjustment of TDS refund claim for that year of ₹ 12,047/- due to failure to file Form No. 10 within the due date of filing the return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that