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

unexplained investment in fixed deposits” made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment. Ld DR submitted that both the CIT(A) and the AO was right in confirming the remaining part of amounts on FDRs made by the assessee during the relevant period but for granting the said relief to the assessee

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

unexplained investment from 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

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

TDS on the interest payments and the lenders had also disclosed the same in their returns of income for the assessment year 2021-22 onwards. Ld AR also placed before us the copies of the bank accounts, returns of income, computation of total income, balance sheet of the loan creditors as also their ledger accounts for the assessment year

SMT. PURNIMA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Purnima Das, C/O. Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Biswajit Das, At-9, Budha Nagar, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aazpd0112 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit Passed U./S.263 Of The Act, Dated 12.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Reev5/2021-22/10540634159(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee Assisted By Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr & Ms. Simran Samal, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue Assisted By Shri Dharmashoka Panda, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is A Professor Of Mathematics At P.N.College, Khurda. The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year On 5.8.2017

unexplained investment in Bank Account U/s.69 of the LT. Act, 1961. In response to this, the Assessee respectfully submits that, during the year under consideration, she has sold the agricultural land owned by her to M/s.Shree Cement Limited for a consideration of Rs.4,60,32,000.00 on 30.O8. 2016. The said sale considerations were deposited in the Axis Bank

SMT. RANJITA NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.25/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Smt. Ranjita Nayak, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(2), At-Plot No.270A, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751007, District-Khurda, Odisha स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Adopn 2618 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

TDS admittedly having not been made and found no infirmity in the action of the AO in disallowing the deduction u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act and, therefore, confirmed the action of the AO. 8 5.2 Before us, the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee was that no disallowance can be made u/s.40

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

M/S. ZONAL MINING & LOADING CONTRACTOR,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.166/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Zonal Mining & Loading Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Contractor, At-Jurudi, Po- Sambalpur Jajanga, Via-Joda, Dist- Keonjhar-758052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaafz 1495 M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.R.Panda, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 23.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- A. For That The Orders Of The Forums Below Are Unjust, Illegal, Improper, Capricious In The Facts Of The Case, Hence, The Entire Addition U/S.69 & 69C Of The It Act Should Be Quashed & Deleted. B. For That The Addition Of Rs.14,52,230/- By The Id. Ao & Confirmed The Same In The First Appeal Is Bad In Law Since The Closing Balance In The Current Account Of Bank Is Not An Investment To Attract The Provisions Of Section 69 Of The It Act. Therefore The Addition As Such Is Not Accepted. C. For That, The Id. Ao Had Accepted The Transactions Involved In The Current Account No. 0218-U62700-060 Relating To Business Income Of The Appellant Shown In The Return Of Income, Thus Additions Of Closing Balance Of Same As Unexplained Investment Is Illegal & Bad In Law Needs To Be Deleted In Toto. D. For That, Addition Of Rs.37,86,283/- As Unexplained Expenditure U/S.69C Of The It Act In Mechanical Manner Without Proper

investment is illegal and bad in law needs to be deleted in toto. D. For that, addition of Rs.37,86,283/- as unexplained expenditure U/s.69C of the IT Act in mechanical manner without proper 2 confrontation of the matter and failure to grant opportunity and reasons caused illegality, hence the orders passed lack principles of natural justice. E. For that

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

TDS. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Walchand & Co. vs. CIT (100 ITR 598) held as under " By its objects clause the trust company was, inter alia, authorised to advance or loan moneys on security of shares, stocks, etc., and also to receive moneys on deposit, interest or otherwise and to lend moneys to other persons

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

investment. However the AO estimated profit @8% amounting to Rs. 8,32,369/- on such deposit of Rs. 1,10,29,608/- treating the same as receipts of the business without any proper enquiry. So the balance amount of Rs. 1,01,47,239/- (Rs. 1,10,29,608 – Rs.8,82,369)is prime-facie required to be added

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

unexplained. d) The A.O. therefore held in the remand report that investments held by Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited did not have any value as these non- listed companies were not doing any business activities. Similarly the buyer companies were also not doing any business activities. The A.O. also held that there was no apparent reason to buy the shares

NISHA DATA COM LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained cash deposit in the bank account, ₹2,20,309/- as FDR with Oriental Bank of Commerce, ₹5,80,067/- as Expenditure disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, ₹24,84,000/- as loss on sale of investment and ₹90,20,461/- as interest as income from other sources were added and the total income was computed

NISHA DATA COM LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained cash deposit in the bank account, ₹2,20,309/- as FDR with Oriental Bank of Commerce, ₹5,80,067/- as Expenditure disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, ₹24,84,000/- as loss on sale of investment and ₹90,20,461/- as interest as income from other sources were added and the total income was computed

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

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

investment in assessee company. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company has shown no interest in participation and co-operation in the assessment proceedings in order to prove the genuineness of creditworthiness and guidance of share transaction. Therefore, he Assessing Officer treated the share application money of Rs.72,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68

ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. SANJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

TDS) Rs.47,761.00=Rs.48,55,000/- The actual addition Rs.70,59,000(-)Rs.48,55,000=Rs.22,04,000/- is the net introduction. The addition of Rs.22,04,000/- from : I) Gift from father Shri Rama Ch, Agarwal- Rs. 18,00,000/- II) Balance of Rs.4,04,000/- is from transfer of funds from investment in M/s.Shree Astha Vinayak Agency, another

M/S. MAA TARANI LOGISTICS LTD,JODA vs. ACIT CIR.-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

invested in the shares of the assessee company. It was the submission that all these details had been filed before the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur. Ld AR further drew our attention to page 1 to 10 of PB, which was the copy of written submission filed before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that in the written

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