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/-

9) of Section 2 of the Act to mean 'the period of twelve months commencing on the 1st day of April every year'. 17.5 In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal v. Isthmian Steamship Lines: (1951) 20 ITR 572, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court exposited on the fundamental principle that 'in income-tax matters

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

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

LALCHND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

LALCHND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

PURUSOTTAMA ESTATES AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PURI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

LALCHND RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

LALCHND RESORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

LALCHND GEM AND JEWELLER PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

LALCHND GEM AND JEWELLER PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

PURUSOTTAMA ESTATES AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PURI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.95 & 99/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019 & 2019-2020) Purusottama Estates & Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Resorts Private Limited, Sri Nahar, Grand Road, Puri-752001 Pan No. : Aabcp 8924 A & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97 & 98/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Resort Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Plot No.6, Hotel New Marion, Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 7289 H & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.108 & 109/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Lalchnd Jewellers Private Limited Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore 4Th Floor, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacl 2556 P & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.110, 111 & 112/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018 To 2019-2020) Lalchnd Gem & Jeweller Vs Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore Private Limited, 1, Lalchand Market Complex, Station Square, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaccl 9025 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2022

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer„s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some

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

9 contributions, viz., 'employees' and 'employers' cannot be brought under same scope and ambit of section 43B to claim deduction - Held, yes - Whether Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17-12-2015, issued in consequence of amendment made to section 43B, to inform settled position that if assessee deposits contribution before due date for furnishing return, no disallowance can be made under

CHANDAN SECURITY SERVICE,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CPC

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

9. While concluding so, we also take note of the plea of the assessee that delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC is not disallowable as the amendments to section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B effected by Finance Act, 2021 were applicable prospectively in relation to Assessment Year 2021- 22 and subsequent years. Therefore, the claim of deduction

CHANDAN SECURITY SERVICE,CUTTACK vs. DCIT(CPC), CPC

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

9. While concluding so, we also take note of the plea of the assessee that delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC is not disallowable as the amendments to section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B effected by Finance Act, 2021 were applicable prospectively in relation to Assessment Year 2021- 22 and subsequent years. Therefore, the claim of deduction

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

139(4). Therefore, the revenue has not been able to point out any reasons why the aforesaid two decisions should not be applied in the facts of the present case to reject the appeal. [Para 12]” 3.1. Further, reliance was placed on the decisions of ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of The Sonhira Foundation for Rural Development vs. DCIT

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

139(4). Therefore, the revenue has not been able to point out any reasons why the aforesaid two decisions should not be applied in the facts of the present case to reject the appeal. [Para 12]” 3.1. Further, reliance was placed on the decisions of ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of The Sonhira Foundation for Rural Development vs. DCIT

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. DISCOVERTURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

disallowed deduction of Rs.3,67,15,136.19 claimed by the assessee u/s.10A and also did not allow deduction u/s.10B of the Act to the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of exemption of Rs.3

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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.

disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) on account of non- deduction of TDS for sum of Rs.3,06,457/- and the Ground No.1 as raised by the assessee stands allowed. 8. In addition to the above, for the sake of clarity, we would like to reproduce Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as under