DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MAGNUM DREAM HOMES PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle -1(1), Vs. M/S. Magnum Dream Homes Pvt M/S. Magnum Dream Homes Pvt Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ltd., 132-A, Sector A, Sector-A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcm 2929 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.20/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.249/Ctk/2017) Out Of Ita No.249/Ctk/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 13 M/S. Magnum Dream Homes Pvt M/S. Magnum Dream Homes Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle -1(1), Ltd., 132-A, Sector A, Sector-A, Zone-A, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcm 2929 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri J.M.Patnaik J.M.Patnaik , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23 /12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 7.3.2017 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. P A G E 1 | 10 C.O.No.20/Ctk/2021 Assessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance of purchase expenses is not based on any documents and explanation. He submitted that the statement given by the partner is not based on valid documentary evidence. Ld AR submitted that a disclosure statement or addition which is not relied on corroborative evidences cannot be a basis to make an addition in the assessment. For this proposition, he relied

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

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the claim of the appellant regarding Long Term Capital Gains by ignoring the evidences and submissions made by the appellant. 2 3. For that under the facts and in the circumstance of the case the amount of Rs.65,55,972/- should not have been treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 and should have been accepted as income from Long

HANUMAN KHEDARIA HUF,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD 2, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela. C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Market, Market, Kachery Road, Rourkela. Kachery Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca .R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/12 12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed the assessee’s claim of the loss on account of long term capital loss in respect of the scrips of Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd. It was the submission that the profit generated in respect of the long term capital gain from the trading of shares of Maa Tarini Industries Ltd., was accepted. It was the submission that

SANDEEP KUMAR AGARWAL,JAGATPUR vs. ACIT,NFAC, DELHI, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Sandeep Kumar Kumar Agarwal, Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack C/O. Agarwal Spices & C/O. Agarwal Spices & Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Jagatpur. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aarpa 8064 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed the entire sale consideration to make the addition of Rs.81,41,052/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had further made an addition of commission alleged to have been paid to intermediaries to an extent of Rs.4,07,053/- though no evidence of such expenditure was found nor it was claimed by the assessee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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