MR. NARENDRA KUMA RBAL,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

depreciation being statutory allowance should have been allowed. D. For that, the passing of the order by the forums below on irregular and irrelevant manner caused unnecessary enhancement of the total income and the addition of Rs.1,16,898/- made for non-disclose of closing balance of bank account should be deleted as the order of assessment passed by rejecting

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-

unexplained. The assesee has also claimed that it had incurred loss from share transaction business of Rs.16.88 lakhs, however, as the same was related to share transactions and since such loss was not declared by the assesee in the return of income filed, the AO has taken no cognizance of the same. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. JAGANNATH CHAUDHURY, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

unexplained investment u/s.69C by the AO is nothing but the amount pertaining to credit balance of deceased partner Smt. Rama Devi, which was transferred to unsecured loan after her death, resulting into difference in closing and opening balance of unsecured loan amount. In view of above, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity in the order

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

depreciation and Assessed total income at Rs.1,80,48,740/- and passed order under section 143(3) of the Act on 26.10.2010. 11. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed order under section 143(3) r.w.s 154 of the Act on 23.12.2010. 12. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). 13. In the first

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

unexplained. d) The A.O. therefore held in the remand report that investments held by Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited did not have any value as these non- listed companies were not doing any business activities. Similarly the buyer companies were also not doing any business activities. The A.O. also held that there was no apparent reason to buy the shares

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

investment in assessee company. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company has shown no interest in participation and co-operation in the assessment proceedings in order to prove the genuineness of creditworthiness and guidance of share transaction. Therefore, he Assessing Officer treated the share application money of Rs.72,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBNAESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.343/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Industrial Development Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Limited (Idcol), Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Order Of Assessment As Well As Appeal Is Against Law, Weight Of Evidences & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Most Arbitrarily Disallowed Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, U/S 14A Against The Exempted Income Of Rs.5,50,000/-, Being Dividend Received From Associate Companies In Routine Manner, Without Properly Recording The Dissatisfaction Of The Assessing Officer 3. The Interest On Income Tax Refund Of Rs.8,04,924/-, Which Is Adjusted Against Demand, Was Not Properly Intimated For Which The Same Is Not Recognized As Income. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer Added Rs.6,66,721/-, As Interest On Fixed Deposit Based On The Comment Of The Auditor, Which Is Recognized In Subsequent Assessment Year. 5. The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Adding, Amount Disallowed U/S 14A, Of Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, Rs.8,04,924/-, On Account Of Income

depreciation loss of Rs.1,98,15,886/-. The cased was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has received dividend income of Rs.5,50,000/-, which has been claimed as exempt income but the assessee suo moto has not disallowed

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWALA,MAYURBHANJ vs. ITO, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2010-2011

investment in hotel building” as sustained by the CIT(A) is uncalled for. 3. For that the addition of Rs.39,000/- in respect of loans from different persons as sustained by the CIT(A) is also improper.” P a g e 1 | 4 ITA No. 424/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year: 20 10- 201 1 3. At the time

DCIT, ROURKELA vs. M/S. SCAN STEELS LTD., SUNDERGARH

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhdcit, Rourkela Circle, Vs. M/S. Scan Steels Limited, Rourkela. Main Road, Rajgangpur, Distt. Sundergarh.

depreciation claimed as deduction by the assessee as claimed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to the tune of Rs.26,39,93,650/- and to the tune of Rs.10,94,66,547/- under the Companies Act leading to the difference between income returned and income computed u/s 115JB of the Act to the tune