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

vii) of sub- ITA No. 264/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 section (1) of section 9" (10)Contentions of the Ld. AO while disallowing payments on account of imports for non deduction of taxes and it's non applicability in the present case The AO has held that the provisions of section

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/-

vii) of sub- section (1) of section 9; (iii) "professional services" shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; ** ** ** 15 13.3 Section 43 in the very same Part D of Chapter IV of the Act of 1961 defines various

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10(46) of the Income tax Act has been made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), of Rs. 53,48,75,077/-. 3.2 This issue was not raised by the appellant before the Assessing Officer. However, before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) the appellant has submitted that: “That, the appellant

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SMT. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

VII, Ludhiana [ITA No.9S1/Chd/2016 dt.18.04.2018] (i) Shri Satish Kishore vs. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi [ITA No.1704/De1l2019 dt.06.09.2019] (j) Mrs. Vidya Reddy Vs. ITO, dt.15.05.2018 (k) Rajnish Agarwal and Sons(HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.1415/CHNY/2018 dt.06.12.2018 (I) Anip Rastogi and Anju Rastogi Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut, ITA No. 3809 and 3810/DELl2018 Ground No.6: On the facts

JAKSONS AGENCIES,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

6. Further in the order dated 29.04.2022, the Tribunal has observed as under :- 3. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee raised the arguments against the impugned order, whereas the Ld. DR vehemently supported the same. 3.1 The Assessee before the Authorities below has claimed that as the Assessee has deposited the employee‟s contributions

DINESH PRATAP SINGH,KEONJHAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.100/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Dinesh Pratap Singh, Vs Dcit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack At-Hudiashi, Near Nac Gate, Joda, Keonjhar Pan No. : Baaps 4341 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattanaik, Ar : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Made Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is With Regard To Confirming The Addition Of Rs.7,60,679/- Towards Late Payment Of Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esi. 3. In The Instant Appeal, On Perusal Of The Assessment Record, We Found That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income Electronically On 02.10.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.62,47,268/-. The Ao Made Addition On Account Of Delay In Depositing Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi, Which Has Also Been Confirmed By The Cit(A). In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee In His Written Submissions, Placed Before Us, At Page 4

vii) Nayrathan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ADIT, ITA No.470/Bang/2021, order dated 23/11/2021; viii) Abhimanyu Sharma Vs. ITO, ITA No.175/JP/2021, order dated 23/11/2021; ix) Nikhil Mohine Vs. DCIT, ITA No.37&38/Jab/2021, order dated 18/11/2021; x) DCIT Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd., ITA No.1777/Kol/2019, order dated 28/10/2021; xi) Suba Singh Vs. ITO, ITA No.85/ASR/2021, order dated 10/11/2021; xii) Citi Centre Developers

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

10. The section 43B of the Act covers only employer's contribution and does not cover employees' contribution, sometimes they have been applied to the provision of section 43B on employees' contribution as well and allowed the deduction to employer even if the employees' contribution is deposited by the due date of filing Income Tax Return (ITR) as mentioned under

PASHUPATI ISPAT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) Nayrathan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ADIT, ITA No.470/Bang/2021, order dated 23/11/2021; viii) Abhimanyu Sharma Vs. ITO, ITA No.175/JP/2021, order dated 23/11/2021; ix) Nikhil Mohine Vs. DCIT, ITA No.37&38/Jab/2021, order dated 18/11/2021; 8 x) DCIT Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd., ITA No.1777/Kol/2019, order dated 28/10/2021; xi) Suba Singh Vs. ITO, ITA No.85/ASR/2021, order dated 10/11/2021; xii) Citi Centre Developers