ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

bogus expenditure claimed has been referred in the tax audit report. Ld. AR prayed for an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the authorities below. Accordingly, we assessee. This ground of appeal of assessee for both the assessment years under consideration is allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Ground No.5 in appeal for the assessment years

JCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

bogus expenditure claimed has been referred in the tax audit report. Ld. AR prayed for an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the authorities below. Accordingly, we assessee. This ground of appeal of assessee for both the assessment years under consideration is allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Ground No.5 in appeal for the assessment years

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

bogus expenditure claimed has been referred in the tax audit report. Ld. AR prayed for an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the authorities below. Accordingly, we assessee. This ground of appeal of assessee for both the assessment years under consideration is allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Ground No.5 in appeal for the assessment years

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

bogus expenditure claimed has been referred in the tax audit report. Ld. AR prayed for an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the authorities below. Accordingly, we assessee. This ground of appeal of assessee for both the assessment years under consideration is allowed for statistical purposes. 22. Ground No.5 in appeal for the assessment years

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHA,BARIPADA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-2014

purchases similar to the amount of bogus sundry creditors, should also have been disallowed at the time of computing profit from the assessee's rice mill business. Failure to do so on the part of the Assessing Officer has rendered the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, he set aside the order

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHOO,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012 - 2013) Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sahoo, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Prop. Of New Kanak Jewellery & Kanak Transport, At/Po: New Market, Keonjhar-758001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Arkps 2114 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri B.R.Panda/Satyajit Nanda, Advs. : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 18.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. As Per The Office Note/Order Sheet Entry, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 48 Days. In This Regard, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. Considering The Application Along With The Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Dr Did Not Object To The Same, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & The Appeal Is Heard Finally.

bogus and fictitious expenses to non-existing parties. But where the genuineness of the payment has not been doubted such addition U/s.40A(3) of the IT Act can not be made in mechanical manner. Thus the orders of the forum below are erred in law. VI. For that the disallowance/addition of expenses applying the percentage rate by the Id. Assessing

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SMT. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

purchased one lac equity shares of JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. of a face value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs. 7/- per share i.e for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lac by way of a preferential allotment in physical form. The payment of the purchase consideration of Rs. 17 lac was made by the assessee vide account

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including