TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub-Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules.” 92. In the case of Sesa Goa Ltd.,(supra), Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Panaji allowed the ground of the assessee challenging the addition made under section 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D of I.T.Rules by observing that before making any disallowance

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

section 68 of the income tax act in the instant case is not reasonable and uncalled-for. 6.6 In view of the above discussion, we found merit in contention of the assessee and, accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee. 7 7. Ground 2 relates to disallowance

CUTTACK CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance claimed under the head loss on OTS in the light of provisions of section 36(1)(vii), its first proviso and its Explanation -2 read with section 36(1)(viia) and 36(2) of the Act. Ld A.R. placed vehement reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank

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/-

7) That the disallowance of gratuity payment to staff amounting to Rs. 2,70,000/- disallowed by the AO should not have been confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 8) That statement of facts and grounds of appeal filed before the CIT(Appeals) may kindly be considered as a part of grounds of appeal before I.T.A.T. 9) That other grounds

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

disallowances. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the claim under section 11(2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association 247 ITR 201 (SC). I.T.A. Nos.: 436 & 437/CTK/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gram Vikas Trust. Ground No. 4: The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B

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

disallowances. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the claim under section 11(2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association 247 ITR 201 (SC). I.T.A. Nos.: 436 & 437/CTK/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Gram Vikas Trust. Ground No. 4: The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution

CHANDAN SECURITY SERVICE,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CPC

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed under section 36(1)(va) 2. [2022] 136 taxmann.com 154 (Delhi - Trib.)[14-02-2022], IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'F', Rakesh Janghu v. CPC, Bangalore, wherein it is held that :- 5. On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee's contribution