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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

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

disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which treats the statements recorded during a search operation as 'evidence' in any proceeding under the ~ Act, 1961, section 133A, while authorizing recording statements by the survey officer, does not give the same status of 'evidence' to such recorded statements. It is therefore open to the assessee to explain this 'statement

RAJESWAR THAKUR,BHAWANIPATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), SAMBALPUR

section 148 of the Act.\nJOHN BOSCO MINZ\nACIT/DCIT,CIR2(1)SAMBALPUR\n5\nITA Nos.143&144/CTK/2025\n3.\nIt was the submission that subsequently on 05.12.2019, the\nassessment was proposed to be reopened with the following reasons :-\n4.\nIt was the submission that the reopening was in fact challenge to the\nagriculture income declared by the assessee. It was the submission

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

disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, ₹24,84,000/- as loss on sale of investment and ₹90,20,461/- as interest as income from other sources were added and the total income was computed at ₹3,33,86,590/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices

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

disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, ₹24,84,000/- as loss on sale of investment and ₹90,20,461/- as interest as income from other sources were added and the total income was computed at ₹3,33,86,590/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance\nof deduction of expenditure since the whole activity was illegal.\n23. In the premises, the impugned notice issued by the Assessing\nOfficer under Section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and must be\nset aside.\n24. The following companion writ petitions, Writ Petition Nos.1015,\n1016

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance\nof deduction of expenditure since the whole activity was illegal.\n23. In the premises, the impugned notice issued by the Assessing\nOfficer under Section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and must be\nset aside.\n24. The following companion writ petitions, Writ Petition Nos.1015,\n1016

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance\nof deduction of expenditure since the whole activity was illegal.\n23. In the premises, the impugned notice issued by the Assessing\nOfficer under Section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and must be\nset aside.\n24. The following companion writ petitions, Writ Petition Nos.1015,\n1016

DEBASIS PADHI,BERHAMPUR vs. ASST.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.208 To 214/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2022 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015 10 To 2015-16

disallowed the estimated expenditure and has added the deposits in the bank account by invoking the provisions of section 133