MAHANADI METAL AND CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.496/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010 - 2011) M/S Mahanadi Metal & Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Chemicals Private Limited, T/4/26/Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaccm 4844 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Parimal Kumar Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A), Sambalpur, Dated 04.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Not Justified In Holding The Nature Of Expenses Of S/ 957144 Under The Head Commission Instead Of Contract Work. (Para 4). 2. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Understanding The Accounting Entry Of Discount Of Rs. 16,91,687 & Wrongly Treated The Bogus Sundry Creditor. (Para8) 3. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Not Justified In Rejection Of Additional Evidence & Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 999390 For Non-Submission Of Vat Return, (Para-9) 4. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Unjustified For Not Sending For Remand The Case & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2799978. 2 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income

bogus sundry creditor. (para8) 3. On the fact and under circumstances of the case the commissioner (appeals) was not justified in rejection of additional evidence and confirming the disallowance of Rs. 999390 for non-submission of Vat return, (para-9) 4. On the fact and under circumstances of the case the commissioner (appeals) was unjustified for not sending for remand

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

67,252/- made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. In Ground No.5 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.29,40,000/- u/s.68 of the Act. 10. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders

SANSAR AGROPOL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. I.T.O. WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus sundry creditors" representing advance from buyers. The contention of the Ld CIT(Appeals) is that since after showing the amount in the balance sheet duly audited by a chartered accountant as unsecured loan, the appellant is claiming that the said advance was wrongly classified as unsecured loan though it was actually advance receipt from buyers. Though the reason

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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. 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

TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

bogus. Ld A.R. referred to page 3 of the APB i.e. ledger account of Zodiac Enterprises from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012, wherein, it has been shown as at 1.4.2011, the amount of Rs.17,36,046/- in opening balance as well as closing balance, therefore, same amount has been brought forward from the preceding year

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

purchasers. Further, non-service of letters to the buyers or non-compliance of the letters by the buyers does not show that the payment of commission was not genuine when the relative sale was considered genuine and accepted by the department. Further, non- P a g e 21 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela furnishing

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

purchasers. Further, non-service of letters to the buyers or non-compliance of the letters by the buyers does not show that the payment of commission was not genuine when the relative sale was considered genuine and accepted by the department. Further, non- P a g e 21 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela furnishing

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that the AO made an attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent‟s unaccounted money, but he did not dig deeper. Notices issued under Sections 133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged