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/-

221 from such person, principal officer or company unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person or principal officer or company, as the case may be, has without good and sufficient reasons failed to deduct and pay the tax. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

disallowance of Rs.66,103/- being interest on TDS without appreciating the fact that interest on TDS, not being tax as defined u/s.2(43) of the 1.T Act, 1961 and compensatory in nature is allowable u/s.37 of the IT Act, 1961. (2.10).Assessee itself denies to be charged interest u/s 234B and u/s.234C of the LT Act.1961 which

THE BALASORE BHADRAK CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,BALASORE vs. JCIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

disallowed the claim of provision for standard assets and NPA amounting to Rs.2,45,59,609/-. It was further submitted that as per provision of section 36(l1) (viia)(a), deduction towards provision for bad & doubtful debts is to be allowed to the assessee being a Non-Scheduled Bank. To support the contention, reliance was placed on the observation

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NILACHAL CARBO METALICKS PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year:2005-06 Acit, Circle 1(2), Vs. Nilachal Carbo Metalicks Bhubaneswar. Private Limited., Plot No.73 & 74/353, Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Aajpu 6205 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

disallowable u/s 43B r.w.s 36(1 )(v) and 36(l)(va) of the Act. It is therefore important in the interests of fairness and justice, reasonable constructions of legal intent and consistency in the reading and interpretations of statutory provisions that the same be applied with reference to Section 40(a)(ia) too. This position has been repeatedly upheld

SWASTHYA BIKASH SAMITI, SCB MEDICAL COLLEGE,CUTTACK vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

221 para 72, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has gone on to hold that once the return is filed and the Income Tax Officer commences the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer is not the taxpayer’s opponent, in the strictly procedural sense of the term. It would also be worthwhile in such context to mention that in today scenario

SWASTHYA BIKASH SAMITI, SCB MEDICAL COLLEGE,CUTTACK vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

221 para 72, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has gone on to hold that once the return is filed and the Income Tax Officer commences the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer is not the taxpayer’s opponent, in the strictly procedural sense of the term. It would also be worthwhile in such context to mention that in today scenario

SWASTHYA BIKASH SAMITI, SCB MEDICAL COLLEGE,CUTTACK vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

221 para 72, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has gone on to hold that once the return is filed and the Income Tax Officer commences the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer is not the taxpayer’s opponent, in the strictly procedural sense of the term. It would also be worthwhile in such context to mention that in today scenario

SWASTHA BIKASH SAMITI, SCB MEDICAL COLLEGE,CUTTACK vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

221 para 72, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has gone on to hold that once the return is filed and the Income Tax Officer commences the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer is not the taxpayer’s opponent, in the strictly procedural sense of the term. It would also be worthwhile in such context to mention that in today scenario

SWASTHYA BIKASH SAMITI SCB MIDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL,CUTTACK vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), CUTTACK

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.324 To 328/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2007 04 To 2007-08 Swasthya Swasthya Bikash Bikash Samity, Samity, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ito (Exemption), Scb Cb Medical Medical College College Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Hospital,Mangalabag, Hospital,Mangalabag, Cuttack Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaeas 5600 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None (Adjn Petition) : None (Adjn Petition) Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

221 para 72, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has gone on to hold that once the return is filed and the Income Tax Officer commences the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer is not the taxpayer’s opponent, in the strictly procedural sense of the term. It would also be worthwhile in such context to mention that in today scenario

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

221 ITR 317 (Guj) It was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597(SC) that what in fact never accrued or was never received cannot be computed as capital gains under section 48. Though the aforesaid case was related to capital gains, it equally applies to the case of principle

ITO, WARD-1, JHARSUGUDA vs. UMESH KUMAR PODDAR, JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

1,34,00,062/-. We find that the above findings of the CIT(A) has not been controverted by ld D.R. by placing any positive material on record, excepting relying on the order of the Assessing officer. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A), which is hereby confirmed and ground of appeal of the revenue

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

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

disallowances of expenses and liabilities for expenses. 4. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT (Appeals)-II, Bhubaneswar who in his order passed in I.T Appeal No.0079/2009-10 dated 29.12.2009 partly allowed the appeal in excluding government grant and house rent recovered from the employees from the total receipts and after

SRI BADAL CHANDRA SENAPATI,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-2, BALASORE

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

221 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Ground Nos.1,7 & 8 of the appeal are general in nature and hence, requires no separate adjudication by me. 4. In Ground No.2 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) should not have confirmed the action