DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

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

TDS is required to be made on "any other sum chargeable under the provisions this Act". Changeability is relevant in this case. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme ITA No. 264/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 Court in the case of CWT Vellis Bridge Gymkhan (1998) 229 ITR 1 (SC), if a person

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/-

7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee has not deducted TDS on payments made to the recipients which was ought to be deducted as per the TDS provisions as prescribed in the Income Tax Act. He also submitted that the amendment made in Section

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

7, it is objected that CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.47,61,689/- made by the AO under section 14A r.w.r 80 without appreciating the fact that disallowance under section 14A r.w.r can not exceed the total exempt income, thus assessee prays restriction of the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D the maximum equivalent to the exempt income

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 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

ARSS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATION CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-2013

b) From the above reading of the proviso it has been conditionally allowed the deduction subject to fulfillment of the condition as specified in first proviso to sub section (1) of section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. c) The proviso states that: "Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct

M/S. GOPAL AND COMPANY,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS/TCS), ROURKELA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

section 206C(1). Having said so, we restore the issue to Assessing Officer with direction to grant relief to assessee under the provision of 206C(1) of Act, with regards to only sale of scrap arising out of manufacturing activity in course of ship breaking after providing due opportunity of hearing to assessee." 7. The Hon'ble High Court

M/S. GOPAL AND COMPANY,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS/TCS), ROURKELA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

section 206C(1). Having said so, we restore the issue to Assessing Officer with direction to grant relief to assessee under the provision of 206C(1) of Act, with regards to only sale of scrap arising out of manufacturing activity in course of ship breaking after providing due opportunity of hearing to assessee." 7. The Hon'ble High Court

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

TDS will not justify the expenses incurred by the assessee in this regard and disallowed to the tune of Rs.20.29 crores and added to the total income of the assessee. 8. Further it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has claimed interest of Rs.129.08 crores as exempt income received and tax free bond and mutual bond. In this

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

section 119(2)(b) of the Act.” 3. We will first take up the appeal in ITA No. 436/CTK/2024. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act by the CPC in which the claim of exemption was denied. Aggrieved with the intimation, the assessee

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

section 119(2)(b) of the Act.” 3. We will first take up the appeal in ITA No. 436/CTK/2024. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act by the CPC in which the claim of exemption was denied. Aggrieved with the intimation, the assessee

BISWAJIT DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

b) of this section, in our opinion, is clearly applicable in the case of the Assessee. In view of the aforesaid discussion and following the aforesaid decision of the Panaji Bench of this Tribunal, we hold that the Assessee is engaged in manufacturing. Since the exemption u/s 10B was denied to the Assessee mainly holding that the Assessee

ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. BISWAJIT DAS, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

b) of this section, in our opinion, is clearly applicable in the case of the Assessee. In view of the aforesaid discussion and following the aforesaid decision of the Panaji Bench of this Tribunal, we hold that the Assessee is engaged in manufacturing. Since the exemption u/s 10B was denied to the Assessee mainly holding that the Assessee

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

1. That the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Assessing Officer (AO) and the additions made therein are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO/TPO and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) erred in not appreciating that the Assessee is not a taxable

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

1. That the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Assessing Officer (AO) and the additions made therein are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO/TPO and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) erred in not appreciating that the Assessee is not a taxable

UTKAL GRAMYA/ GRAMEEN BANK,SAMBALPUR vs. ITO (TDS), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.190 To 192/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011 To 2012-2013) Utkal Gramya/Grameen Bank, Vs. Ito(Tds), Sambalpur Dhanupalli, Dist-Sambalpur-768005 Tan No. : Bbnb 00759 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

7. Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order of AO for non-deduction of TDS as per Section 194A of the Act on the interest payments in which TDS was applicable. The assessee had obtained Form No.15G&H but due to unawareness, the same could not be submitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax, which