ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRB CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

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

condone the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 23. Ground No.1 of the appeal is general in nature and hence, requires no separate adjudication by us. 24. In Ground No.2 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance

M/S. NORTH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY OF ORISSA LTD.,BALASORE vs. DCIT (TDS-II), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

delay, we condone along with other connected appeals. 3. Since the issue and facts involved in these appeals are interconnected and common, they are being heard and disposed off through consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.280/CTK/2015 for the assessment year 2008-2009, wherein the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. SRI DIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), 1(1), Vs. Sri Dipendra Bahadur Singh, Sri Dipendra Bahadur Singh, Cuttack Hudisahi, Joda, Keonjhar Hudisahi, Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. No.Adjps 5869 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 6 /4 4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. In the ground of appeal, the revenue has objected to the findings of the ld CIT(A) in holding that the relevant amendment on the issue of section 40(a)(ia) was retrospective and accepted the additional evidence without calling for remand report from the AO. 5. Facts

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

194A(3)(iii)(a) of the Act. Therefore, Ground No.1 of appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. 10. In Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee, the grievance is that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,07,744/- made u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the fact that same

M/S. MAHASAKTI FOUNDATION,KALAHANDI vs. ACIT, SAMBALPUR

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

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

194A of the Act, as such the impugned disallowance of Rs.14,45,272.00 is liable to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6. For that, the Authorities below have committed gross error of fact as well as in law in treating the Appellant as Assessee in default by not deducting tax at source on interest paid U/s.201

M/S. POWERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.206/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Powerware India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 6A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Bhubaneswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar- 751010 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp 1607 R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

194A of the Act. I find that 3 the CIT(A) has held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which provides that if the payees have already paid taxes on their income which include the receipt from the assessee then no addition u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is to be made, is prospective