GOPABANDHU DASH,KENDRAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KENDRAPARA WARD, KENDRAPARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetized currency. It was the prayer that the disallowance as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

disallowance so made by the AO. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the orders of the ld CIT(A), which are hereby upheld. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. ITA No.84/CTK/2024: Asst.year: 2015-16 9. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

disallowance so made by the AO. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the orders of the ld CIT(A), which are hereby upheld. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. ITA No.84/CTK/2024: Asst.year: 2015-16 9. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

disallowance so made by the AO. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the orders of the ld CIT(A), which are hereby upheld. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. ITA No.84/CTK/2024: Asst.year: 2015-16 9. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

disallowance so made by the AO. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the orders of the ld CIT(A), which are hereby upheld. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. ITA No.84/CTK/2024: Asst.year: 2015-16 9. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

disallowance so made by the AO. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the orders of the ld CIT(A), which are hereby upheld. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. ITA No.84/CTK/2024: Asst.year: 2015-16 9. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated

KASHINATH PANDA,BHADRAK vs. ITO BHADRA, BHADRAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Kashinath Kashinath Panda, Panda, Vs. Ito, Bhadrak, Bhadrak Ito, Bhadrak, Bhadrak Charampa, Bhadrak, Odisha Charampa, Bhadrak, Odisha Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Blgpp 0534 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/0 /06/2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 23.3.2024 23.3.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10478/2018 Cuttack/10478/2018-20 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Mohit Sheth, Mohit Sheth,Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri The Assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

demonetization, the assessee had withdrawn an amount of Rs.9,40,000/- and the same were in large denominations, which had become SBN. It was the further submission that the ld CIT(A) has also reworked the average sale of dairy products and agricultural products. It was the submission that the average sale of the same is not permissible insofar

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

demonetization period. The assessee was asked to 2 Samir Kumar Paikaray furnish confirmation from the debtors along with their ledger accounts for FY 2016-17. The assessee filed confirmation from the debtors through e-proceedings. It is seen that the confirmations were hand-written in a stereotyped manner and signed by the parties. It is also seen that the parties

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-

demonetization, the learned AO made additions on issues that were not part of the issues for which 'limited scrutiny' initiated. It was held that without following the procedure as contemplated in CBDT Instruction bearing No. 5 of 2016 for converting a 'limited scrutiny' assessment into a 'complete scrutiny' assessment, the AO could not assume jurisdiction to make any addition

GITA DEVI GUPTA,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year :2017-18 Gita Devi Gupta, Pro. M/S. Gita Devi Gupta, Pro. M/S. Vs. Dcit, Assessment Circle Dcit, Assessment Circle D.D. Textiles, Nandi Sahi, D.D. Textiles, Nandi Sahi, 2(1), Cuttack 2(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aazpg 8154 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 7/8/ /2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 7/8 /8/2024 O R D E R

demonetized currency, the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) stands upheld. 6. The second issue was in regard to payment of bogus commission added by the Assessing Officer to an extent of Rs.20,37,437/-. It was the submission that the assessee had paid commission to seven persons whose names and address are also

SMT. PURNIMA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Purnima Das, C/O. Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Biswajit Das, At-9, Budha Nagar, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aazpd0112 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit Passed U./S.263 Of The Act, Dated 12.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Reev5/2021-22/10540634159(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee Assisted By Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr & Ms. Simran Samal, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue Assisted By Shri Dharmashoka Panda, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is A Professor Of Mathematics At P.N.College, Khurda. The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year On 5.8.2017

disallowed and shall not be treated as Taxable income' In response to it, it may be submitted here that, during the Assessment year under consideration, the Assessee had sold Agricultural land owned by her. The claim of exempted income is the net value of sale of Agricultural land. For better clarification of this income, your Assessee wants to draw' your

SISKHA 'O' ANUSANDHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.91/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan Vs Cit(Exemption), Hyderabad Plot No.224, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar Pan No. :Aabts 1525 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

demonetization period and explanations offered in course of assessment, Ld. Assessing officer being satisfied completed the assessment by accepting the return of income of the assessee. 4. That there after the CIT(exemption) Hyderabad called for the assessment record of the A/Y -2017-18 for examination and after examination found the order dated 25.07.2019 passed

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)

demonetization period. In consequence to the survey, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment proceedings. Notices u/s. 142(1) was issued to the assessee. It was asked to the assessee to furnish relevant information , materials and documents and in compliance the assessee furnished all the relevant documents, materials and information alongwith the books of accounts which were verified and test

GITANJALI SAHOO,KHURDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, KHURDA, KHURDA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Gitanjali Sahoo, C/O Gitanjali Sahoo, C/O- Ajay Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward Sahoo, Sahoo, At: At: Jagannathpur, Jagannathpur, Khurda, Khurda Khurda, Khurda Ps: Banapur, Dist: Khurda Ps: Banapur, Dist: Khurda Pan/Gir No. No.Eupps 4067 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/11/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/20 024 O R D E R

demonetized currency was allowed upto 2nd December, 2016. He prayed that the addition P a g e 3 | 5 Assessment Year : 2017-18 made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. In alternate, he prayed that as the assessee has not been provided sufficient opportunity before

KANAK BHANJ DEO,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.21/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Kanak Bhanj Deo, Vs Ito, Ward-5(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.2093/3341, Lane-5, Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751013 Pan No. :Angpb 4721 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Biswal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2024 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 16.11.2023, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058002817(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Entered Into Joint Development Agreement (Jda) With The Builder On 13.01.2012 & Further Executed A Distribution Agreement On 05.11.2014 According To Which The Land Of The Assessee Was Given To The Developer For Construction Of Multistoried Building & As Per Distribution Agreement, In Consideration The Assessee Is Entitled For 26% Area In The Constructed Building. During The Impugned Year The Assessee Has Got Four Flats Having Total Area Of 4220.23 Sq.Ft. (Including 92.85 Sq.Ft. Additional Area) As The Sale Consideration Being 26% Of The Newly Constructed Building. Out Of The Said

demonetization period and the assessment was completed wherein the AO allowed the deduction u/s.54F of the Act on one flat and also computed short-term capital loss on sale of two flats against the capital gain declared by the assessee and not allowed the set off of such loss against the capital gains. In the first appeal

PRASANTA KUMAR MOHAPATRA,KEONJHAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.113/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Mining Road, New Market, Keonjhar, Odisha Pan No. :Aavpm 9636 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Dated 25.08.2021, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1035100447(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Committed Serious Error In Modify The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer Which Is Unjust, Illegal, Arbitrary, Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions F The Act, Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Been Made In Gross Violation To The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Annulled. 2. That, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Sambalpur Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Jurisdiction Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order Thereof Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled. 3. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Scope Of Power Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order There Off Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled.

disallowance of Rs.3 lakh was made to the returned income. Thereafter the ld. PCIT Sambalpur had initiated the proceedings u/s 263 and passed the impugned order wherein ld. PCIT has modified the assessment order and added a sum of Rs. 3,44,64,222/- u/s. 68 towards unexplained cash credits against which the assessee is in appeal before