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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

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

2 of his statement. He simply stated that everything was managed by brokers/agents in reply to question no.2 5 of his statement. b) Moreover in spite of such a huge investment, he was not able to produce receipts for rent payments, electricity bills and other evidences (utility bills) in support of business activities in reply to question no.26