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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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

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

unexplained share application money. 5. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the shareholders could not appear during the assessment proceedings as sufficient time was not given to the shareholders. It was further submitted that four company shareholders are having substantial assets and liabilities and the Assessing Officer’s decision to hold that they do not have

M/S. EXIM INDIA OIL COMPANY LTD,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 1998-99 M/S. Exim India Oil Company M/S. Exim India Oil Company Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At:N.H-5, Tiberwal Nagar, 5, Tiberwal Nagar, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaace 3929 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Tiberwal Tiberwal, Md Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/6/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 8 /6 6/2022 O R D E R

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, where the Id. Assessing Officer has treated the share holder of the appellant Company as bogus under surmises and conjecture. That at the time of assessment proceeding and Appeal Proceeding, the Appellant time and again submitted that all the share holders / creditors are identifiable, most of them are Income Tax assessee

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

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), 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

M/S. GRM TRADING CO.,ANGUL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Grm Trading Co., Bazar M/S. Grm Trading Co., Bazar Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Chowk, Angul. Chowk, Angul. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aajfg 9627 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shrip.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20/6 6/ 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/ /6/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

unexplained investment. 4. It was the submission of ld AR that the assessee had never made cash purchases. It was the submission that the assessee is a partnership firm and all the purchases done by the assessee have been paid through RTGS only. It was the submission that the cash transaction did not belong to the assessee

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

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