SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

section 145 (3) and order of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd(supra), he cannot proceed further without rejecting Books of Account to make any addition to the profit derived, by taking a provisional costing figure, submitted by the appellant herself before the IBM. 20. We note that the assessee being raising the Iron Ore from

M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.201-205/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2019-2020) M/S Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. :Aaact 6489 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2023 In The Following Appeals :-

disallowances which includes the additions on account of suppression of sale. In first appeal, ld. CIT (A) allowed substantial relief to the assessee and only sustained the addition on account of suppression of sale for all the years and the amount of Rs. 17,86,243/- pertained to AY 2014-15. 4 ITA Nos.201-205/CTK/2023 4. During the course of hearing

M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.201-205/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2019-2020) M/S Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. :Aaact 6489 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2023 In The Following Appeals :-

disallowances which includes the additions on account of suppression of sale. In first appeal, ld. CIT (A) allowed substantial relief to the assessee and only sustained the addition on account of suppression of sale for all the years and the amount of Rs. 17,86,243/- pertained to AY 2014-15. 4 ITA Nos.201-205/CTK/2023 4. During the course of hearing

M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.201-205/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2019-2020) M/S Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. :Aaact 6489 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2023 In The Following Appeals :-

disallowances which includes the additions on account of suppression of sale. In first appeal, ld. CIT (A) allowed substantial relief to the assessee and only sustained the addition on account of suppression of sale for all the years and the amount of Rs. 17,86,243/- pertained to AY 2014-15. 4 ITA Nos.201-205/CTK/2023 4. During the course of hearing

M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.201-205/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2019-2020) M/S Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. :Aaact 6489 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2023 In The Following Appeals :-

disallowances which includes the additions on account of suppression of sale. In first appeal, ld. CIT (A) allowed substantial relief to the assessee and only sustained the addition on account of suppression of sale for all the years and the amount of Rs. 17,86,243/- pertained to AY 2014-15. 4 ITA Nos.201-205/CTK/2023 4. During the course of hearing

M/S. MAA TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.201-205/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2019-2020) M/S Tarini Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle, Sambalpur A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. :Aaact 6489 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, All Dated 31.03.2023 In The Following Appeals :-

disallowances which includes the additions on account of suppression of sale. In first appeal, ld. CIT (A) allowed substantial relief to the assessee and only sustained the addition on account of suppression of sale for all the years and the amount of Rs. 17,86,243/- pertained to AY 2014-15. 4 ITA Nos.201-205/CTK/2023 4. During the course of hearing

DEOKARAN DAS RAMBILASH,SUNDARGARH vs. ITA, WARD-04, , ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2010-2011 Deokaran Das Deokaran Das Rambilash, Old Vs. Ito, Ward -4, Station Road, Rourkela. Station Road, Rourkela. Rourkela. Pan/Gir No.Aadfd 9708 K Aadfd 9708 K (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/20 /2021 O R D E R

Sections 144, 145(3) and 184(5) of the Act, I am of the considered view that the disallowance u/s.184

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, 328, 329, 955, 959, 1019 of 2015, 3

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, 328, 329, 955, 959, 1019 of 2015, 3

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, 328, 329, 955, 959, 1019 of 2015, 3

BIPIN BIHARI MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -5(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Section 145(3) of the Act and rejected the books of accounts if any maintained by the assessee. It was the submission that after rejecting the books of accounts the AO while computing the total income of the assessee adopted the returned income and made addition representing the difference between the returned income from profession and the income estimated

BIPIN BIHARI MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -5(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Section 145(3) of the Act and rejected the books of accounts if any maintained by the assessee. It was the submission that after rejecting the books of accounts the AO while computing the total income of the assessee adopted the returned income and made addition representing the difference between the returned income from profession and the income estimated

SUNIL KUMAR MAHAPATRA,BARGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR., SAMBALPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sunil Kumar Mahapatra Sunil Kumar Mahapatra Vs. Acit, Acit, Balasore Balasore Circle, Circle, At; Bandutikra Ward No. 09 Bandutikra Ward No. 09 Sambalpur Po/Ps/Dist: Po/Ps/Dist: Baragarh, 768028 Odisha Pan/Gir No. . Aibpm1422F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K Mishra, Adv , Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey,, Ld Cit : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey,, Ld Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2 2024 O R D E R Per Bench:

section 145(3) of the Act were not invoked. He thus, submits that in such situation no disallowance could be made

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,CUTTACK vs. BBN-C-(4)(8), INCOME TAX OFFICE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

145 of the Act were invoked by the lower authorities. It is a case of processing u/s.143(1) of the Act which does not allow any such disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section 145A of the Act. This being so, this contention of the ld. Sr. DR is devoid of any merits and cannot be acceded to. In view

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. 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