THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-II, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

293 ITR 267 is not applicable to the case of the appellant. In that view of the matter, it is held that the appellant deductor is liable for TDS u/s 194-1 of the I.T.Act for use of assets of SL & ML Sarda. As stated above, “there is no mention of any consideration paid by the appellant deductor

THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-II, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

293 ITR 267 is not applicable to the case of the appellant. In that view of the matter, it is held that the appellant deductor is liable for TDS u/s 194-1 of the I.T.Act for use of assets of SL & ML Sarda. As stated above, “there is no mention of any consideration paid by the appellant deductor

ARSS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATION CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-2013

section 44AB of the Income tax Act, 1961. He submitted that the JVs have filed their income tax returns and the impugned interest payment has been shown as income and necessary taxes had been paid. He submitted that the impugned disallowance of interest u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act will tantamount to double taxation. Ld A.R. referred to the decision

M/S. RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT(TDS-1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and made disallowance and raised the demand of non-deduction of TDS u/s.201(1) at Rs.5,29,792/- and Rs.2,13,620/- u/s.201(1A) of the Act, vide order dated 28.1.2014. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings

M/S. RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT(TDS-1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and made disallowance and raised the demand of non-deduction of TDS u/s.201(1) at Rs.5,29,792/- and Rs.2,13,620/- u/s.201(1A) of the Act, vide order dated 28.1.2014. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

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

section 40A(2). On the basis of above, the Assessing officer disallowed 10% of such expenditure. It was the stand of the assessee that Coal India Limited was formed by Govt. of India as a Public Sector Undertaking whole 100% shares are held by the President of India and controlled through Ministry of Coal. after making lot of permutation

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. RUTU RAJA ROUT, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2009-2010 C.O.No.22/Ctk/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.216/Ctk/2015)

disallowed deduction for Rs.80,14,600/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Ltd vs CIT (2007) 293

SHIV KUMAR PODDAR,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-2, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

disallowance of expenses on estimation basis is unjust. 6. The income from insurance agency should be estimated on reasonable basis.” 3. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal of the assessee as under: “2. The assessee derives income from three different sources viz .manufacturing of bakery products from the business concern in the name and style of M/s Dassons Baders

SWARNA DAS,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

disallowance of expenses on estimation basis is unjust. 6. The income from insurance agency should be estimated on reasonable basis.” 3. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal of the assessee as under: “2. The assessee derives income from three different sources viz .manufacturing of bakery products from the business concern in the name and style of M/s Dassons Baders

ANAND PRASAD JAISWAL,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowances. 5. The Pr. CIT found that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and issued notice. Further the Pr.CIT after considering the submissions of assessee and findings of the AO has set aside the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act to the AO for fresh adjudication. 6. Aggrieved

JANARDAN NATH,DHENKANAL vs. ITO, DHENKANAL WARD, DHENKANAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.37/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Janardan Nath, Vs. Ito, Dhenkanal Ward, Chandan Bazar, Dhenkanal Dhenkanal स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Abcpn 4137 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section of Income Tax Act and he could not produce any evidence except copy of acknowledgements for the A.Y.2004-2005 to 2008-2009 and 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. In addition to this, he had also submitted written submissions which was considered by the AO. Further, the AR of the assessee in response to the query of the AO submitted that

SHWETA AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.140/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Shweta Agarwal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela Odisha-769004 Pan No. :Auhpa 4567 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Jaish Joshi, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai, Dated 17.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Only Issue In The Assessee’S Appeal Is Against The Actin Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of The Assessee U/S.10(38) Of The Act In Respect Of 70,000 Shares Of Kailash Auto Sold On 14.11.2015 For A Consideration Of Rs.15,82,745/- & A Claim Of Exemption U/S.10(38) Of The Act To An Extent Of Rs.14,42,732/-. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Issue Is Squarely Covered By The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Ridhi Bagaria, Passed In Ita No.76/Ctk/2023, Order Dated 18.05.2023. It Was Also Submitted That Very Same Issue Has Been Upheld By The Hon’Ble

disallowance of the claim of the assessee u/s.10(38) of the Act in respect of 70,000 shares of Kailash Auto sold on 14.11.2015 for a consideration of Rs.15,82,745/- and a claim of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act to an extent of Rs.14,42,732/-. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the issue is squarely