M/S. JAGANNATH CONSTRUCTION,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA WARD, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Jagannath Construction, M/S.Jagannath Construction, Vs. Ito, Ito, Rayagada Rayagada Ward, Ward, At/Po: Tikini, Rayagada At/Po: Tikini, Rayagada Rayagada Pan/Gir No. No.Aaifj 0479 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik Asnd Subit Sahu, Advs J.M.Pattnaik Asnd Subit Sahu, Advs Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/8 8/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/8 /8/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

249 (SC), the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act to 30%.” 6. This being so, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinaate Bench in the case of Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders (P) Ltd(supra), the Assessing officer is directed to restrict the disallowance to 30% under section

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NEELACHAL GRAMYA BANK, BHUBANESWAR

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

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

disallowance of Rs.l 1,70,84,000/- u/s.36(l)(vii) of the Act be fully deleted. Ground Nos.1 & 2: 22. Without prejudice to the paras 1 to 20 above: C.O. No. 13/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year:20 08- 09 a. As already stated the assessee, during the scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, has produced its books

SARASWATI SISHU MANDIR,DHENKANAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTDEPARTMENT, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 249(2) of the Act when the Ld. CIT(A) issued a notice for hearing by requiring the assessee to submit the details in respect of grounds of appeal raised. Therefore, dismissing the appeal after proceeded for hearing is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 4. For that, on the facts and circumstance of the case

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPAMY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं/Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.110/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. National Aluminium Company 1(2), Bhubaneswar Limited, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.30/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.110/Ctk/2018) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 21.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Co No.30/Ctk/2018

2. Disallowance of Interest on disputed Govt, duty (Electricity Duty and water charges -Rs.202,61,47,249/-, a. That on the facts and in the circumstances the case, sustaining the addition/disallowance of Rs.202,61,47,249/- under 'Interest on Disputed Govt, duty (Electricity Duty and water charges)' by the learned CIT (Appeals), ignoring the written submissions and the orders

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPAMY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं/Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.110/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. National Aluminium Company 1(2), Bhubaneswar Limited, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.30/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.110/Ctk/2018) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 21.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Co No.30/Ctk/2018

2. Disallowance of Interest on disputed Govt, duty (Electricity Duty and water charges -Rs.202,61,47,249/-, a. That on the facts and in the circumstances the case, sustaining the addition/disallowance of Rs.202,61,47,249/- under 'Interest on Disputed Govt, duty (Electricity Duty and water charges)' by the learned CIT (Appeals), ignoring the written submissions and the orders

KAMYAB TELEVISION(P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.536 & 537/Ctk/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Assessment Year 18 Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle No.159, Alaka Unit No.159, Alaka Unit-Ii, Ashok Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Aaecm 3608 B Aaecm 3608 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr & S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024

249(2) of the Act r/w section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. While going through the material available on record, we find P a g e 3 | 6 ITA Nos.536 & 537/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-1 & 2017-18 that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the cause of delay due to the fact that the notice was sent on email address

KAMYAB TELEVISION (P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.536 & 537/Ctk/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Assessment Year 18 Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle No.159, Alaka Unit No.159, Alaka Unit-Ii, Ashok Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Aaecm 3608 B Aaecm 3608 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr & S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024

249(2) of the Act r/w section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. While going through the material available on record, we find P a g e 3 | 6 ITA Nos.536 & 537/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-1 & 2017-18 that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the cause of delay due to the fact that the notice was sent on email address

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MGM MINERALS LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

249 of the paper book showing list of expenses of Rs.9,54,500/-, find that the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source on the applicable expenses. Therefore, no disallowance was called for u/s40(a)(ia) of the Act for the advertisement and publicity expenses of Rs.9,54,500/-. 18.1 As regards the issue of disallowance of rent expenses

MGM MINERALS LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

249 of the paper book showing list of expenses of Rs.9,54,500/-, find that the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source on the applicable expenses. Therefore, no disallowance was called for u/s40(a)(ia) of the Act for the advertisement and publicity expenses of Rs.9,54,500/-. 18.1 As regards the issue of disallowance of rent expenses

MGM MINERALS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

249 of the paper book showing list of expenses of Rs.9,54,500/-, find that the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source on the applicable expenses. Therefore, no disallowance was called for u/s40(a)(ia) of the Act for the advertisement and publicity expenses of Rs.9,54,500/-. 18.1 As regards the issue of disallowance of rent expenses

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of executing civil contracts works and hiring of machinery and filed his return of income on 30.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs.28,90,580/-. Upon issuance of statutory notices, the assessee produced audit report u/s.44AB in Form No.3CB and 3CD along with the audited balance sheet

SRIPRAKASH PANY,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year :2010-11

disallowed, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is wrong in endorsing the action of the Ld. AO, therefore the deduction of 1.65 672 is to be allowed u/s 10(13A) of the Act. 4. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in facts and circumstances in not considering the submission of the assesseee that the assessee does

PRADEEP PATI,KENDUJHAR vs. ITO,WARD, KENDUJHAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.540 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pradeep Pati Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Brahmanagaon College Road, Brahmanagaon College Road, Keonjhar Keonjhargarh H. O Kendujahar Onjhargarh H. O Kendujahar Town Kendujhar 758001 Kendujhar 758001 Pan/Gir No.Amaapp 8010 D Amaapp 8010 D (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty , Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 18/11/2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. Nfac/2020- 21/10251602 For The Ass For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Shri P.R.Mohaty, P.R.Mohaty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

disallowed on flimsy grounds on the basis of surmises or presumptions or assumptions deserves to be deleted due to compiling ground realities and existence of exceptional and unavoidable circumstances. 4. 4. For that, the addition of Rs.1,47,93,800/- to the total income towards unexplained money added U/s 69A of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.39

KONARK AQUATICS & EXPORT (P) LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2 recalled for readjudication of grounds No.5 & 6 of the assessee’ s appeal. Consequently, only grounds No.5 & 6 of the assesse’s appeal is being adjudicated in this order. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the main issue is the disallowance of the ocean freight, survey expenses, testing charges and legal charges in respect of which

KENDRAPADA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KENDRAPADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.376/Ctk/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Acit, Cir-1(2), Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 27.03.2015, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.546/2011-12 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. This Appeal Had Originally Been Disposed Off By The Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 16.03.2020, Wherein It Was Held That The Amendment To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act By The Finance Act (No.2) Act, 2014 Was Retrospective In Operation & The Disallowance On Account Of The Non-Deduction Of Tds Was Liable To Be Restricted To 30% As Against 100% Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). 3. The Revenue Had Filed A Miscellaneous Application Bearing M.A.No.39/Ctk/2021, Wherein The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Shree Choudhary Transport Company (2020) 426 Itr 289

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act clearly shows that the amendment has been brought to remove hardship caused to the assessee. It must be understood that the disallowance of 100%, by the said amendment was restricted to 30%, thus, clearly the amendment was brought in to remove the hardship caused to the assessee. In these circumstances, respectfully following

OM SRI NILAMADHAB BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.296/Ctk/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders (P) Vs Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Ltd., Plot No.288, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. :Aabco 2822 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.05.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0330/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. This Appeal Had Originally Been Disposed Off By The Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 26.11.2019, Wherein It Was Held That The Amendment To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act By The Finance Act (No.2) Act, 2014 Was Retrospective In Operation & The Disallowance On Account Of The Non-Deduction Of Tds Was Liable To Be Restricted To 30% As Against 100 Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). 3. The Revenue Had Filed A Miscellaneous Application Bearing M.A.No.06/Ctk/2020, Wherein The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Shree Choudhary Transport Company (2020) 426 Itr 289

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act clearly shows that the amendment has been brought to remove hardship caused to the assessee. It must be understood that the disallowance of 100%, by the said amendment was restricted to 30%, thus, clearly the amendment was brought in to remove the hardship caused to the assessee. In these circumstances, respectfully following