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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

income declared by the assessee. In first appeal, Id.CIT(A) has allowed partial relief and confirmed the addition of Rs.69,39,513/- by holding the long term capital gain declared by the assessee and claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act as undisclosed

SHRI NIRMAL CHANDRA OJHA,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.95/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sri Nirmal Chandra Ojha, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Balasore, At: Mobarakpur, Soro, Balasore Dist: Balasore-756045 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Asvpk 7004 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 23.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0327/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Reassessment So Passed By The Learned A.O. Is Premature, Without Jurisdiction & Without The Authority Of Law, As Such, The Same Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 2. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Quashed The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Particularly When, The Same Is Without Jurisdiction, As Such The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 3. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Not Have Ignored The Explanation As Well As The Cash Flow Statement & Capital Account Furnished By The Appellant & Should Not Have Confirmed The Addition Made By The Learned A.O., Treating The Same As Undisclosed Investment.

capital gain but he proceeded to understand the issue of source of income/funds of Rs.8,38,350/- to purchase the said property with other two persons and after considering the reply and factual position explained by the assessee made addition of Rs.6,71,130/- under the head income from undisclosed

KALPANA MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

gains of business or profession", it is essential to know the manner of disclosure of investment/accounting relating to listed shares and securities transactions 3.1.20. Accordingly, the direction was issued in this 'limited scrutiny' to examine whether the investment and income relating to securities transactions are duly disclosed. 3.1.21. The 'limited scrutiny' was never initiated to examine the source of investment

SHRI ANTARYAMI KAR,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.94/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sri Antaryami Kar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Balasore, S/O-Bhagirathi Kar, District : Balasore At-Podapatna, Oupada, Dist: Balasore-759049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Asvpk 7004 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 23.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0328/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Reassessment So Passed By The Learned A.O. Is Premature, Without Jurisdiction & Without The Authority Of Law, As Such, The Same Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 2. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Quashed The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Particularly When, The Same Is Without Jurisdiction, As Such The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 3. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Not Have Ignored The Explanation As Well As The Cash Flow Statement & Capital Account Furnished By The Appellant & Should Not Have Confirmed The Addition Made By The Learned A.O., Treating The Same As Undisclosed Investment.

undisclosed investment. 2 4. For that, the learned C.I.T.(A) should have deleted the addition of Rs.6,71,130.00 made by the learned A.O., particularly when, the impugned addition is not sustainable, as such, the same needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, the learned C.I.T.(A) should not have ignored the judicial pronouncement

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

gain is only through manipulation. 4.9 Regarding the 4 alleged company share holders, it seen from their returns of income that M/s. Vindya Agencies (P) Ltd. has declared a loss of Rs. 1,03,190/-, Sunrays Agencies Pvt. Ltd has declared a loss of Rs. 1,53,220/-, Saffire Exports and Agency Pvt. Ltd. has declared a profit

GANESH KUMAR SHARMA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-1, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal as well as on merits also

income of Rs.17,36,790/-. The case has been reopened u/s.148 of the Act by issue of notice u/s.31.03.2021 and consequently the proceedings were completed vide order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act, wherein the addition of Rs.43,82,162/- has been made on account of long term capital gain by treating the same as undisclosed

DR. SUBASH CHANDRA JENA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

undisclosed income as the assessee failed to disclose the income before the proceedings u/s.153A of the Act and completed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act determining total income of the assessee at Rs.8,74,000/-. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty order was passed on 28.06.2018 levying penalty of Rs.34,427/- for A.Y.2012-2013

DR. SUBASH CHANDRA JENA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

undisclosed income as the assessee failed to disclose the income before the proceedings u/s.153A of the Act and completed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act determining total income of the assessee at Rs.8,74,000/-. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty order was passed on 28.06.2018 levying penalty of Rs.34,427/- for A.Y.2012-2013