DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

purchase of materials and payment to bank, when the payment is overdue RKDCPL, which carrying out Road work in remote localities, needs cash sometime urgently to send its work sites Reference may be made to the voucher (Ref page no 64 of the Paper Book) of RKDCPL where it is mentioned that on 16.09.10, the RKDCPL paid

M/S. NIYATI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-2007

bogus companies, which are being used as conduit for rotating the money despite no real business or physical existence. Hence, M/s Auroplast Merchandise Pvt Ltd, M/s Saffire Export Agency Pvt Ltd, M/s Sun Rays Agencies Pvt Ltd and M/s Vindya Agencies Pvt Ltd definitely fail on the ground of "Identity" "Credit worthiness" and "Genuineness of Transaction" as these are nothing

SURENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,NUAPADA vs. ITO, BHAWANIPATNA WARD, BHAWANIPATNA

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year :2011-12

bogus expenses in order to reduce its income. Further, no details have been provided either by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A) as to which of the transportation expenses is not verifiable. Therefore, we are of the considered view that no estimated disallowance out of total transportation inward expenses of Rs.96,71,825/- can be made by theAassessing

SUDERSHAN BHUYAN,BALASORE vs. JCIT, BALASORE RANGE, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

purchase of which it was found to be bogus. In absence of any such nexus, in my considered view, adhoc disallowance out of genuine business expenditure cannot be made. I, therefore, vacate the disallowance of Rs.9,906/- made by the lower authorities and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 13. In Ground No.5 of the appeal, the grievance

INDERPAL SINGH CHHABRA,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.450/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Inderpal Singh Chhabra Vs Acit, Circle Rourkela Prop: Essar Enterprises Daily Market, C/O Crazy Cool, Main Rd, Po/Ps : Rourkela, Dist : Sundargarh Pan No. :Ajlpc 6337 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Baidyanath Behera, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 04.09.2024 In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068345718(1)), For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Transportation Of Coal & Trading In Coals. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Original Return Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed U/S.143(3) Of The Act By The Nfac & The Assessment Came To Be Completed On 10.02.2021 Accepting The Returned Income. Ld Ar Drew Our Attention To Page 3 Of The Paper Book

cash withdrawal from your bank accounts maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited during the financial year 2017-18. Please provide reason and use for the same with relevant documentary evidence. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi 4. It was the submission that the question No.12 was a specific query with regard

NATBAR NATH,KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE

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

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

bogus and added to the income of the assessee. 5. The CIT(A) called for a remand report and the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 17.1.2014 stated that the addition of Rs.5,94,651/- was justified as the creditors could not be established during the assessment proceedings. 6. The assessee was confronted with the remand report and in reply

PRATAP CHANDRA MOHANTY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, PARADEEP, PARADEEP

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

purchase from third parties other than the customers. Thus, though the assessee is doing a works contract the same would not fall within the meaning of the word 'works contract' for the purpose of the act due to the exclusion provided in the meaning of 'work' in section 194C of the Act. The issue raised by the Ld. CIT that

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) ..

bogus to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- and disallowed the same and accordingly made addition to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) reduced the same to Rs.10,00,000/- on the ground that at best 50% of the labour charges remained outstanding payable as at the end of the year. We find that

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

purchased shares worth Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.3,22,00,000/- respectively from Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited were not found on the website of MCA. Thus receipts to the extent of Rs.3,47,00,000/- in the hands of Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited have remained unexplained. c) The A.O. also reported to the CIT(A) that Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited

M/S. UTKAL PLASTER PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2008-09

deposition. I. day T. Return for A. Y. 2007-08 Shows income at Rs. 105259/- 2 Smt. Chanda 26-03- 250000 Cash 16-12- 14-12- Failed to Devi Jajodia 208 2010 2010 depose Speed Post 3 Pranab 14-04- 240000 Cash No No Deposed but income is Kishore 2007 summon summons commensurate Pattnaik with the Share application money Asse

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

deposited in respondent’s bank account. In view thereof, the CIT(A) found there was no reason to add the capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange

M/S. EXIM INDIA OIL COMPANY LTD,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 1998-99 M/S. Exim India Oil Company M/S. Exim India Oil Company Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At:N.H-5, Tiberwal Nagar, 5, Tiberwal Nagar, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaace 3929 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Tiberwal Tiberwal, Md Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/6/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 8 /6 6/2022 O R D E R

cash credit u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, where the Id. Assessing Officer has treated the share holder of the appellant Company as bogus under surmises and conjecture. That at the time of assessment proceeding and Appeal Proceeding, the Appellant time and again submitted that all the share holders / creditors are identifiable, most of them are Income Tax assessee

INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus or is a ploy adopted by the assessee to reduce the taxable profit. 2.3 The AO in the assessment order has given a list of commission agents, letters issued to whom have not been replied. Since all the relevant details relating to commission payments were given by the assessee, the onus cast on the assessee appears to have been

ACIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus or is a ploy adopted by the assessee to reduce the taxable profit. 2.3 The AO in the assessment order has given a list of commission agents, letters issued to whom have not been replied. Since all the relevant details relating to commission payments were given by the assessee, the onus cast on the assessee appears to have been

GITA DEVI GUPTA,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year :2017-18 Gita Devi Gupta, Pro. M/S. Gita Devi Gupta, Pro. M/S. Vs. Dcit, Assessment Circle Dcit, Assessment Circle D.D. Textiles, Nandi Sahi, D.D. Textiles, Nandi Sahi, 2(1), Cuttack 2(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aazpg 8154 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 7/8/ /2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 7/8 /8/2024 O R D E R

deposited in the assessee’s bank account. It was the submission that for the purpose of assisting the bank and public, the assessee used to collect demonetized currency of the poor people and exchange the same in the bank account of the assessee as an employee used to go bank daily. It was the submission that this is a part

SIBA NARAYAN ROUT,BHADRAK vs. ACIT, BALASORE

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09

deposits as agreed in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we confirm the additions of Rs.69,957/- made by the Assessing Officer. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 19. Now we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.387/CTK/2012. 20. The first ground relates to restriction of addition of Rs.31,167/- in place of Rs.5

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

deposits (ICDs) is under the circumstances misconceived and untenable, both on facts and in law. P a g e 15 | 31 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The main thrust of the assessee's arguments, relying on the decision in Mukundray K. Shah (supra), was that whenever a loan or advance is given, the benefit clause of the provision