MR. MANOJ KUMAR NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs.‖ 19. We rely on the judicial precedents and are of the opinion that there is a legitimate and bona fide claim is available to the Tax Payer and it cannot be taxed in the absence of any authority. 20. Further the Article

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

254(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 categorically provides that “the Tribunal is to give both the parties to appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass P a g e 6 | 15 Assessment Year : 2014-15 such orders thereon as it thinks fit”. Admittedly, the Tribunal does have the power to condone the delay. The Tribunal being the highest

M/S PARAPIT PORT TRUST,CUTTACK vs. ADDL. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

depreciation @15% on railways and rolling stock We are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on th is ground and dismiss the ground of appeal of the revenue. Thus, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 20. Now, we shall take appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No.332/CTK/2013 for assessment year 2009-2010, wherein the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CUTTACK, CUTTACK vs. PARADEEP PORT TRUST, JAGATSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

depreciation @15% on railways and rolling stock We are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on th is ground and dismiss the ground of appeal of the revenue. Thus, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 20. Now, we shall take appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA No.332/CTK/2013 for assessment year 2009-2010, wherein the assessee

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-

depreciation which were not subject of 'limited scrutiny', Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by enquiring into issues beyond scope of 'limited scrutiny' and thus, the impugned order was to be quashed. Cases relied on / referred to: a) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 97 Taxman 358/229 ITR 383 (SC) b) Vijay Kumar v. ITO [IT Appeal

SIBA NARAYAN ROUT,BHADRAK vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09

254/- Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) was issued to the assessee. In compliance to the notices, ld A.R. appeared from time to time before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also issued notice under section 133(6) to various parties calling for information on proposed additions in show cause

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

1,67,46,057 which is overstated, when compared with the actual financial statements, at pages 15-30 of the paper-book before us, by almost 130 times i.e. around 13,000%, and the valuation computations are based on this highly exaggerated figure. It is only elementary that when value of a share is computed under the DCF method

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. GANGADHAR JENA, PARADEEP

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L. P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-2012

depreciation was confirmed. 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CU(A) was justified in giving direction to the AO to estimate profit @5% on the subcontract P a g e 1 | 3 ITA No. 357/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year: 20 11- 201 2 work as against the profit estimated from sub contract work