ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. BISWAJIT DAS, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

bogus or forged one.To decide the issue whether all these units are engaged in any manufacturing or production of article or thing, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 43. Provision of sec. 10A of the Act which deals with the special provisions in respect of the newly established undertakings in free

BISWAJIT DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

bogus or forged one.To decide the issue whether all these units are engaged in any manufacturing or production of article or thing, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 43. Provision of sec. 10A of the Act which deals with the special provisions in respect of the newly established undertakings in free

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

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

44 parties Rs.1,02,81,647.68 Total; Rs.1,88,71,405.83 6. He observed that the turnover of MP Rice Mill, one of the units of the assessee, was Rs.1,50,79,561 during the relevant year. But, sundry creditors of Rs.85,89,758 appearing in its books, P a g e 4 | 11 ITA No. 154/CT K/ 2018 Asse

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. EMPOWERTRANS PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

section 143(3) of the Li Act, 1961 was concluded on 31.03.2014 wherein the returned income of Rs.5,78,14,287/- was enhanced to Rs.9,90,44,440/-. The sole ground of addition was the bogus sub-contract expense claimed to be incurred by the assessee company in favour of one of the party with name & style M/s. Makeway Consultancy

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

44,000/- only whereas total cash withdrawals from bank was Rs.18,80,000/- as against the commission receipt of Rs.20,37,437/-, which clearly showed that monies had been re- routed to the payers of the commission. It was the submission that though there is no dispute to the paper work, the fact remains that the commission payment was bogus

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