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

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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.

TDS) Circle, seeking permission for getting the deduction of tax at source u/s 194-I at a lower rate of 5.5% which has been issued and the assessee has admittedly deducted tax at source on wheeling P a g e 6 | 19 Assessment Year :2010-2011 and transmission charges at a lower rate as per the certificate issued

DILLIP KUMAR NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.330 & 339/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) Shri Dilip Kumar Nayak, Vs. Jcit, Range-2, Bhubaneswar Plot No.270/A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khurda, Odisha-751016 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aahpn 0352 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

Section 201(1A) of the Act on account of payments made to the two parties of Rs.47,94,340/- without deducting the TDS as well on balance payments on which no TDS had been made. 14. We further find from the submissions of the assessee that he could not furnish certificate in respect of balance additions confirmed

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.9,45,96

M/S KHANDELWAL STEEL & PIPES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

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 अपीऱ सं./Ita No.138/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Khandelwal Steel & Pipes, Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), 614, Bomikhal, Cuttack Puri Rd Bhubaneswar Bhubanewswar-751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfk 7718 R (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Shadiram Sharma, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

96,365/-, which is the expenses made under the head Coolie and Cartage out ward / inward, instead of 10% being Rs. 1,87,253/-, in as much as, the expenses are genuine in nature and the vouchers duly signed by the daily labourers like Coollies and Trawlywallas by affixing the Revenue Stamp and, moreover, the Ld. AO has not rejected

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, 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, 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

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

M/S. CUTTACK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and ld. AO made disallowance of Rs.24,99,770/-. The ld.AO also dealt with the bye-laws and the circulars & ITA Nos.394 to 396/2015 and the deduction allowable u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) and finally concluded that the only primary agricultural credit societies and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank are qualified

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINTLINK COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue i

96,705/- and for the balance amount TDS was not deducted for the various reasons and further out of total transportation charges the assessee has deducted TDS on Rs.9,66,834/- and on the balance amount there was no TDS deduction. Further the explanations submitted by the assessee on non-deduction are not satisfactory and supportive and finally

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINTLINK COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue i

96,705/- and for the balance amount TDS was not deducted for the various reasons and further out of total transportation charges the assessee has deducted TDS on Rs.9,66,834/- and on the balance amount there was no TDS deduction. Further the explanations submitted by the assessee on non-deduction are not satisfactory and supportive and finally

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

96,896/- u/s 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

96,896/- u/s 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