Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

296 results for “TDS”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,290 Mumbai5,250 Bangalore2,551 Chennai2,008 Kolkata1,440 Pune1,423 Ahmedabad1,090 Hyderabad982 Indore732 Cochin642 Jaipur641 Patna549 Chandigarh513 Raipur483 Nagpur368 Visakhapatnam353 Karnataka349 Surat316 Cuttack296 Rajkot238 Lucknow175 Amritsar168 Jodhpur119 Jabalpur118 Ranchi101 Dehradun96 Agra81 Guwahati74 Panaji67 Allahabad63 Telangana51 SC23 Varanasi17 Kerala15 Calcutta14 Himachal Pradesh8 Rajasthan7 J&K3 Orissa3 Punjab & Haryana3 Uttarakhand3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 40116 Section 26384 TDS75 Addition to Income57 Section 143(3)56 Disallowance56 Deduction52 Section 201(1)37 Section 194C32 Section 194H

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

ITA 289/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 92

TDS u/s.195(1) of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. On appeal

Showing 1–20 of 296 · Page 1 of 15

...

32

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

ITA 61/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

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) ..

For Appellant: Shri B. Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR

Section 194CSection 194HSection 40

TDS has not been made as per provisions of a particular section (i.e. 194H) and therefore the disallowance U/s. 40(a)(ia) has been made. Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. 8

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

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

ITA 473/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 10Section 10BSection 2

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 is not engaged

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

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

ITA 493/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 10Section 10BSection 2

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 is not engaged

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 192/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty 9 ITA Nos.190-192/CTK/2019 is prescribed Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay, if the assessee proves that there

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 190/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty 9 ITA Nos.190-192/CTK/2019 is prescribed Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay, if the assessee proves that there

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 191/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty 9 ITA Nos.190-192/CTK/2019 is prescribed Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay, if the assessee proves that there

LATEST GENERATION ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 150/CTK/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 200Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the respondent-authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent.” 8

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. GRIDCO LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 298/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year :2010-2011 2011 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Janapath, Bhubaneswar Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 9.5.2016 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0493/14-15 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 194Section 194JSection 197(1)Section 40

8) TMI 591 - lTAT, MUMBAI and Hubli Electric supply versus The income Tax officer, TDS, Hubli 2012 (11) TMI 546-ITAT Bangalore. 23, The provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 507/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 194C

TDS applicability-ambit of Section 194-C, unless specifically shown otherwise). The AO clearly needed to exhibit greater application of mind as well as assiduousness in his carrying out investigations and ferreting out evidences of satisfactory legal worth. l) Further, the fact that the higher claim of depreciation @ 30%_has_been accepted in the instant case for the preceding

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

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

ITA 39/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

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 195 is wrong, incorrect contrary to facts on record, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous and bad in law. d. The A.Q having not specified on which amount the TDS were not made and which are required to be made by NALCO and merely on a working made by A.O himself without any material on record and evidence, but on the basis

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

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

ITA 331/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

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 195 is wrong, incorrect contrary to facts on record, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous and bad in law. d. The A.Q having not specified on which amount the TDS were not made and which are required to be made by NALCO and merely on a working made by A.O himself without any material on record and evidence, but on the basis

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

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

ITA 1/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

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 195 is wrong, incorrect contrary to facts on record, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous and bad in law. d. The A.Q having not specified on which amount the TDS were not made and which are required to be made by NALCO and merely on a working made by A.O himself without any material on record and evidence, but on the basis

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 65/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

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 195 is wrong, incorrect contrary to facts on record, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous and bad in law. d. The A.Q having not specified on which amount the TDS were not made and which are required to be made by NALCO and merely on a working made by A.O himself without any material on record and evidence, but on the basis

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

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

ITA 338/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

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 195 is wrong, incorrect contrary to facts on record, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous and bad in law. d. The A.Q having not specified on which amount the TDS were not made and which are required to be made by NALCO and merely on a working made by A.O himself without any material on record and evidence, but on the basis

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

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

ITA 69/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

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 195 is wrong, incorrect contrary to facts on record, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous and bad in law. d. The A.Q having not specified on which amount the TDS were not made and which are required to be made by NALCO and merely on a working made by A.O himself without any material on record and evidence, but on the basis

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

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

ITA 306/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Soumya Singh & Nirod PatadeFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 201(3)

TDS) proceeded to pass order on the basis of evidences furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee having failed to deduct tax as required under section 194H is a defaulter within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act and created a demand of 17,62,920/- and interest of Rs.6,34,651/- u/s.201

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 365/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (

8% of the Suppressed receipt after invoking section 44AD of the Act, whereas it was not a case where the provisions of section 44AD could have been invoked as even the disclosed turnover was more than Rs.1 crore and the assessee had got its accounts audited u/s.44AB of the Act. It is a common knowledge that presumptive rate

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/CTK/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

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.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 40

8. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A) and delete the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) on account of non- deduction of TDS

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

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.

For Appellant: Shri Damodar Pati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 194HSection 263Section 40

TDS. The relevant provisions of Section 194H of the Act are as under :- Commission or brokerage. 194H. Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying, on or after the 1st day of June, 2001, to a resident, any income by way of commission (not being insurance commission referred to in section 194D