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

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

133(6) issued to the creditors came back unserved and therefore the creditors were bogus. It is however found that the AO has treated the purchase made during the year from the same very persons as genuine. The payment made to them was also treated as genuine and disallowance was made only by applying the provisions of section

VAIBHAV RONOKA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2012-2013 2013 Vaibhav Raonka Vaibhav Raonka, C/O. Hardware Vs. Ito, Ward 4(1), Bhubaneswar. Ito, Ward 4(1), Bhubaneswar. Junction, Junction, Plot Plot No.49, No.49, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aixpr 3837 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka , Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/12/ 201 / 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/1 12/ 2019 O R D E R

section 133(6) of the P a g e 3 | 6 Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Income Tax Act, 1961 to all the sundry creditors and noted that the letters returned unserved with the postal remarks ‘not known’, ‘no such address and ‘no confirmation received’. Although the assessee filed the evidences of identity of the creditors but could not able

SANSAR AGROPOL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. I.T.O. WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowances made by the AO: I) Rs 50,000/- from Vehicle Running and Maintenance Expenses II) Rs 70,500/- from Tours and Travel III) Rs 35,509/- from printing and stationery. 2. At the outset, ld. AR did not press grounds No.1 & 3 for which he has endorsed to it in the memo of appeal. Accordingly, grounds No.1

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

disallowed Rs.2,29,841/- on account of interest paid on loans in respect of 8. In appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee observing that the assessee has not provided any sufficient proof of identification of subscriber company and the assessee has failed to comply with the directions of AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

133(6) of IT.Act, 1961 were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remark “not known/left/addressee refused.” In some cases, commission agents did not mention anything about the agents and only pleaded that they have executed work only for Indrani Patnaik. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer observed that it is seen that while making payment towards commission, assessee has deducted