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 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

164/-, to total disclosed income of the Respondent-assessee. 17. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. In this case, the short question which arises for adjudication is as to P a g e 15 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 whether the undisclosed production done by the assessee, as alleged

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

164/-, to total disclosed income of the Respondent-assessee. 17. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. In this case, the short question which arises for adjudication is as to P a g e 15 | 62 ITA No.366/CTK/2018 C.O. No.01/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 whether the undisclosed production done by the assessee, as alleged

M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

gain or benefit of the persons specified in section 13(3) of the Act or for any other business enterprise or entity which comes within scope of this said provision. Ld. AR also drew our attention towards written submissions and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly observed that if the assessee is extending loan then Section

M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

gain or benefit of the persons specified in section 13(3) of the Act or for any other business enterprise or entity which comes within scope of this said provision. Ld. AR also drew our attention towards written submissions and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly observed that if the assessee is extending loan then Section

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

164 42,85,040 67,76,451 development exp. 4. Community - 13,56,980 11,91,862 34,56,438 37,68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

164 42,85,040 67,76,451 development exp. 4. Community - 13,56,980 11,91,862 34,56,438 37,68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

164 42,85,040 67,76,451 development exp. 4. Community - 13,56,980 11,91,862 34,56,438 37,68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

164 42,85,040 67,76,451 development exp. 4. Community - 13,56,980 11,91,862 34,56,438 37,68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16