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

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

section 201(1) of the Act has been raised against the assessee on account of non-deduction of TDS. It was the submission that one of the person Shri R.K.Poddar had also appeared before the AO and his statement was recorded on 5.9.2019 wherein he has confirmed the business with the assessee and the receipt of commission. Ld AR further

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

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

201 (Rajastan) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) (2003) 26 ITR 0487 CIT vs Saini Medical Store (2005) 275 ITR 79 b. No penalty u/s 2710/E should be impossible on the assessee for any failure referred in provision which include section 2710, if it is proved that there is a reasonable cause for failure of Reasonable causes was sufficiently made

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

201 (Rajastan) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) (2003) 26 ITR 0487 CIT vs Saini Medical Store (2005) 275 ITR 79 b. No penalty u/s 2710/E should be impossible on the assessee for any failure referred in provision which include section 2710, if it is proved that there is a reasonable cause for failure of Reasonable causes was sufficiently made

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. Such erroneous conclusion has been arrived that by the Ld. AO taking into consideration some sample cases of Ore raising contracts as the total expenditure incurred on Ore raising. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 7. For these

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. Such erroneous conclusion has been arrived that by the Ld. AO taking into consideration some sample cases of Ore raising contracts as the total expenditure incurred on Ore raising. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 7. For these

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. Such erroneous conclusion has been arrived that by the Ld. AO taking into consideration some sample cases of Ore raising contracts as the total expenditure incurred on Ore raising. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 7. For these

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. Such erroneous conclusion has been arrived that by the Ld. AO taking into consideration some sample cases of Ore raising contracts as the total expenditure incurred on Ore raising. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 7. For these