UDIT PRASAD BABU,SAMBALPUR vs. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.239/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Udit Prasad Babu, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur New Colony, Budharaja, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaypb 0331 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate With Shri B.R. Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

cash deposit of Rs.38,70,000/- in the bank accounts of the assessee after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Pr.CIT, the assessee has filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld A.R. submitted that the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act and the Assessing

SMT. SANJUKTA PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance 1 Unexplained 62,05,000/- 1. Learned CIT (A) has rejected the investment appellant's claim basing on the statement U/s.69ofthel.T of Sri. Sarbeswar Sahu (M.D) of the Act 1961. Bhulaxmi Realcon Private Limited (Purchaser of land) who has categorically stated before the AO that he has not given any cash to the appellant. 2. Learned

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

disallowance of Rs.42,32,795/- and accepted the source for the cash deposit to the extent of Rs.66,77,205/-. It was the submission

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. 8. Further, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer reads as under : "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers

DHANALAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.153/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Vs. Ito, Angul Ward, Angul Laxmi Bazar, Angul-759122 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfd 8791 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, Advs. िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

cash deposits. Ld. AO examined the details furnished by the assessee and accordingly he disallowed Rs.83 lakhs as unsecured cash

TUFF TUBES (ORISSA) (P) LTD.,JANKIA, KHORDHA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

deposits in the bank account are from the cash book of the assessee and also from the bank substantially with the cash withdrawals which have been treated as disallowable

ITO, WARD-2(4), BHUBANESWAR vs. SRI DHUSASAN ROUTRAY, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialmember & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year :2011-12 Ito, Ward 2(4), Bhubaneswar. Vs. Sri Dhusasan Routray, Plot No.485/1989, Dumduma, Aiginia, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aebpr 5955 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallowance of Rs.56 lakhs. Ld D.R. prayed that the impugned order of the CIT(A) may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the Assessing Officer. 6. Replying to above, ld A.R, first of all, submitted that in the grounds raised by the revenue, the tax effect is less than Rs.50 lakhs, therefore, in view of the recent CBDT

SMT. MAMTA SHARMA,BARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

deposit was first credited by the Bank on 3.4.2012 amounting to Rs.2,252.04 and further on 2.7.2012 amounting to Rs.34,569/-. Since these credits are occurred in the next financial year 2012-13, the assessee has duly reflected the said interest in her account in the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14. 2. Subsidy amount of rs.10

SRI SIBA SHANKAR DAS(DECEZASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. RITANJALI DAS,KALAHANDI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

deposit of Rs,48,50,000/- cash in the bank account of the assessee. Consequently, the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted. 5. The second issue raised by the ld. AR was in respect of an addition of Rs.1,60,07,807/- being the reimbursement of labour charges paid

DEBASHREE PRIYADARSHINI SETHY,KANSAR, KENDRAPARA vs. ITO WARD, KENDRAPARA, KENDRAPARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.132/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Debashree Priadarshini Sethy, Vs Ito, Ward Kendrapara, C/O-Prahlad Sethy Kansar, Kendrapara Via-Baldadevjew, Kendrapara-754212 Pan No. :Fsdps 3497 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.01.2024, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059784550(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. As Per The Office Note, There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Present Appeal & The Appeal Is Heard & Disposed Off Finally On Merits. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Limited Scrutiny For The Sole Reason To Verify The Cash Deposit During

cash deposit over the sale proceeds; (iii) introduction of capital of Rs.25,00,000/-: . (iv)Deposits of old specified notes (SBN) of Rs,46,500/-. 3.1 After covering of all the relevant points a show cause notice was issued on 16/12/2019 seeking for compliance by 19/12/2019, There is no compliance by that date or till date. On basis of materials

PRAMOD KUMAR AGARWALLA,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.12/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Pramod Kumar Agarwalla, Vs. Ito Angul Ward-Angul Prop: Pramod Trading Co., Shankar Cinema Road, Angul- 759122 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaxpa 8746 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K.Bandyopadhyay, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 22.08.2016. 2. Ground No.1 Of The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Payment Of Interest To Loan Creditors Rs.8,16,618/- U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act For Non-Deduction Of Tds. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.8,16,618/- By Disallowing Interest U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act For Non- Deduction Of Tax At Source. The Ao Observed That On Growing Through The Ledger Copy Of Unsecured Loan It Was Found That The Amount Of Interest Paid/Credited To The Payee Exceeded The Minimum Amount Not Chargeable To Tax And, Therefore, He Did Not Accept The Explanation Of The Assessee That Since The Assessee Had Collected Form No.15G For Non-Deduction Of Tax From The Payee, Hence, No Tds Was Deducted From The Payments Of Interest Made. According To The Ao Column No.4 Of The Form No.15G Read

disallowed the deduction of interest expenditure of Rs.8,16,618/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. Before us, no material was brought on record by the AR of the assessee to show that even where interest payment exceeded the taxable limit of income still Form No.15G could be filed by the recipient of income and asking

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

cash deposit was found as alleged by the AO, assessee has discharged its duty by providing all the relevant material required for the investigation. Therefore, application of section 68 of the income tax act in the instant case is not reasonable and uncalled-for. 6.6 In view of the above discussion, we found merit in contention of the assessee

SAMIR KUMAR PAIKARAY,KHURDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KHURDA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 382/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Samir Kumar Paikaray,………….………….,…Appellant Sriram Nagar, Khurdha, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha [Pan:Ahcpp4275D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Khurda Ward, Khurda, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha Appearances By: Shri K.K. Bal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

cash credit under section 68 representing deposit of SBN (+) Addition on account Rs.41,456/- of undisclosed asset being undisclosed income (+) Disallowance

B.GUPTESWAR PATRA,NABARANGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14

cash credit and savings bank account of SBI, Umerkote. Ld A.R. further submitted that the Pr. CIT has observed that the action of the AO is without any enquiry and assessment is made in estimating the income u/s. 44AD of the Act for the deposit of Rs.1,02,92,820/- @ 8%. Ld counsel vehemently submitted that the allegation made

PRAVAKAR SAMANTA,NAHARAPUR vs. ITO, WARD JAJPUR, JAJPUR WARD, JAJPUT

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.355/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Pravakar Samanta, Vs Ito, Ward Jajpur At-Naharapur, Jajpur Town-755001 Pan No. :Anaps 7558 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 30.11.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058346163(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That There Are Three Additions In Dispute. First, Being An Amount Of Rs.7,85,000/- Representing Sbn Notes Deposited During The Demonetisation Period In The Current Account & Od Account Of The Assessee. Secondly, The Addition Of Rs.8,45,068/- Representing The Time Deposit Of The Assessee Treating The Same As Unexplained Investment Of The Assessee. Thirdly, The Addition Of Rs.1,52,897/- Representing The Deduction Claimed U/S.80C Under Chapter Via On The Payment Made Towards Lic Premium.

cash in the accounts of the assessee. This being so, the addition of Rs.7,85,000/- as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted. 7. With regard to addition of Rs.8,45,068/- representing the time deposit, the ld. AR has placed before me various fixed deposit receipts. It was the submission that these

CHANDI FILLING STATION,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Chandi Chandi Filling Filling Station, Station, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Manguli, Cuttack Manguli, Cuttack Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aacfc 8350 K (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

cash deposits in the bank in denomination of 1,000 and 500 during the demonetization period. The assessee duly explained that specified currency was allowed by the notification issued by RBI for petrol pumps and medicine dealers to accept the specified currency during the demonetization period. In consequence to the survey, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment proceedings. Notices

BISWAJIT NAYAK,ROURKELA, ODISHA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.19/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Biswajit Nayak, Vs Acit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Qtr.No.B-174, Sector-1, Rourkela-769008 Pan No. :Aaqpn 2087 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/05/2024

cash deposit in bank account of Rs.1,28,90,120/- and iii) disallowance of interest on certain depreciation of Rs.5

NISHA DATA COM LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, both the appeals filed for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

cash deposit in the bank account, ₹2,20,309/- as FDR with Oriental Bank of Commerce, ₹5,80,067/- as Expenditure disallowed