TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

undisclosed income”. He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of 221 ITR 239 (All), wherein, it has been held that “whether where deposits had been made by partners on very first day when partnership firm came into existence, onus was on the partners to explain the source of deposits made

M/S- MAA JAGADHATRI ROAD LINES FIRM,KEONJHAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the directions

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

undisclosed income but this income could not be offered to tax in the relevant assessment year 2015-16 and same was offered for taxation in the succeeding assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has paid tax thereon without claiming any TDS

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,CUTTACK vs. ITO, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

TDS from such receipts. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that the amount is to be treated as income from other sources undisclosed

SHRI DILIP KUMAR NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

undisclosed deposits in SB a/c. Bearing A/c. No. 511210100004605. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 9,01,844/- being the credit entries made in the SB account bearing No. 511210100004605 maintained with Bank of India, Kharvel Nagar Branch since the same were not reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee. During the course of remand proceedings

KUNI SAMANTARAY,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-2(4), CUTTACK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS of Rs.14,04,066/- and professional receipt at Rs.1,35,02,430/- brought to tax, the differential amount of Rs.41,50,242/- as undisclosed fee received. The ld.AR has filed his written submissions as under :- 1. Assessee assessed u/s.144 on dt.22/01l2014. Aggrieved filed appeal before CIT(A). CIT(A) Dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved filed appeal before

KUNI SAMANTARAY,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-2(4), CUTTACK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS of Rs.14,04,066/- and professional receipt at Rs.1,35,02,430/- brought to tax, the differential amount of Rs.41,50,242/- as undisclosed fee received. The ld.AR has filed his written submissions as under :- 1. Assessee assessed u/s.144 on dt.22/01l2014. Aggrieved filed appeal before CIT(A). CIT(A) Dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved filed appeal before

RABINDRA KUMAR MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.300/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Rabindra Kumar Mohanty, Vs Ito, Ward-2(2), C/O Dr. Basudev Mishra, Bhubaneswar Plot No.3C/1, 1St Floor, Near Raj Bhawan Square, Unit-8, Bhubaneswar- 751012 Pan No. : Abxpm 8506 B (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate By िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date : 21/12/2021 Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 22.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. This Appeal Itano.300/Ctk/2016 Was Dismissed By This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 30.08.2017 On Account Of Non- Appearance On The Part Of The Assessee. Thereafter The Assessee Took The Matter Before The Hon’Ble High Court & The Hon’Ble High Court In W.P.(C) No.2487 Of 2019, Vide

undisclosed gross receipts, treating the same as income, 3 instead of adding the profit embodied therein. The impugned addition being unsustainable, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, the learned C.IT.(A) should not have confirmed the addition of gross receipts of Rs.66,43,421.00 made by the learned A.O. treating the same as income

YAZDANI INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS was deducted on the interest as per section u/s.194A of the Act and hence made addition of Rs.4,60,000/. 4.6. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on 31.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs.13,71,30,890/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal with the CIT(A). Before

GUDLA BHASKAR RAO,KORAPUT vs. ACIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR, BERHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS was deducted on the interest as per section u/s.194A of the Act and hence made addition of Rs.4,60,000/. 4.6. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on 31.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs.13,71,30,890/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal with the CIT(A). Before

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

TDS Certificates, found the gross receipt of commission from Bajaj Allianz is Rs.8,65,190/- as against Rs.7,25,757/- disclosed by the appellant in her return and added Rs. 1,39,433/- to the returned income. In view of the enhanced gross commission received from Bajaj Allianz, the A.O. is not justified in further disallowing 10% of the expenditures

SWARNA DAS,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

TDS Certificates, found the gross receipt of commission from Bajaj Allianz is Rs.8,65,190/- as against Rs.7,25,757/- disclosed by the appellant in her return and added Rs. 1,39,433/- to the returned income. In view of the enhanced gross commission received from Bajaj Allianz, the A.O. is not justified in further disallowing 10% of the expenditures

SUBHALAXMI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,NAYAGARH vs. JCIT, RAMGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

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

undisclosed TDS under the head “commission” based on 26AS statement. 58. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not disclosed receipt of Rs.20,996/- as commission from Shri Mahadev Edible Products Ltd., and Good Health Agro Tech Ltd. Before the Assessing Officer, it was submitted by the assessee that the books of account were finalised on the basis

ITO, WARD-2(4), BHUBANESWAR vs. SRI DHUSASAN ROUTRAY, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialmember & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year :2011-12 Ito, Ward 2(4), Bhubaneswar. Vs. Sri Dhusasan Routray, Plot No.485/1989, Dumduma, Aiginia, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aebpr 5955 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-12

TDS etc) Holder 1. Punjab National 27/09/10 800,000 Dhusasan 400,000 0 400,000 0 0 0 800,000 Opening Balance Bank (SB A/c Routray 4,01,320.10 0553000100139823 2. Andhra Bank 10/08/10 1,000,000 Diksha 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 1,000,000 Opening Balance SB A/c. Routray 21,84,153/- 148010100001033 3. Andhra

DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR vs. ALLIED INFRA SUPPLIERS, GANJAM

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is partly

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2012-2013 C.O.No.42/Ctk/2018

undisclosed source.” The matter was remanded to the Assessing officer for examination/verification and report. The AO in his report has stated as under: “On perusal of the submissions made by the assessee on 20.2.2017 and further on 22.2.2017, the assessee’s transactions with two parties namely M/s. Gopalpur Port Ltd. and M/s Sri Avantika Contractor I Ltd., is explained

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

undisclosed income in any circumstances. In the present case also assessee has proved the identity of all the investors by copy of PAN card Xerox, Annual Report, and Bank statement of the party. Therefore, assessee has fulfilled its onus cast upon him to prove the identity of shareholders and genuineness. Therefore, it is prayed your honor to delete the addition

PRADEEP MINING & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2007-08

TDS amount in its return of income whereas the gross receipts in total were not shown. Hence, he confirmed the addition of Rs.58,52,000/- being the difference of gross receipts as undisclosed

KALPANA MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

TDS and Name and address of Principal Tax deductors, if any. 3.1.29. The appellant, vide 5th 142(1) notice dated 23.10.2018, was asked for the 1 time to explain the source of investment in Kotak Securities, and this point was reiterated in all the subsequent 142(1) notices. 3.1.30. At the cost of repetition, it must be mentioned here that

ITO, KHURDA vs. BULARAM DALAI, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

undisclosed income u/s.68. The assessee challenged the reopening on the ground that there was no failure on its part to make a disclosure of material facts and the reopening was based on change of opinion. The department relied on the Full Bench verdict in Usha International, 348 ITR 485 and argued that as the AO did not apply his mind

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

undisclosed receipts as unaccounted business receipts and estimating a net profit of 8% of such receipts. It is not a case of no enquiry or inadequate enquiry. It is a case where Ld. Pr. CIT wants to impose his decision on the decision taken by the ld. AO after examining the facts in dispute before us. 13. Hon'ble Apex