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

u/s. 133A given to the survey authorities, had admitted to the fact of taking accommodation entries from certain Kolkata based companies. On the basis of these 'admissions' by the assessee, the AO concluded that the bogus nature of the long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance

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

u/s. 133A given to the survey authorities, had admitted to the fact of taking accommodation entries from certain Kolkata based companies. On the basis of these 'admissions' by the assessee, the AO concluded that the bogus nature of the long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance

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

u/s. 133A given to the survey authorities, had admitted to the fact of taking accommodation entries from certain Kolkata based companies. On the basis of these 'admissions' by the assessee, the AO concluded that the bogus nature of the long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance

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

u/s. 133A given to the survey authorities, had admitted to the fact of taking accommodation entries from certain Kolkata based companies. On the basis of these 'admissions' by the assessee, the AO concluded that the bogus nature of the long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance

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

u/s. 133A given to the survey authorities, had admitted to the fact of taking accommodation entries from certain Kolkata based companies. On the basis of these 'admissions' by the assessee, the AO concluded that the bogus nature of the long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance

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

u/s. 133A given to the survey authorities, had admitted to the fact of taking accommodation entries from certain Kolkata based companies. On the basis of these 'admissions' by the assessee, the AO concluded that the bogus nature of the long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance

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

u/s. 133A given to the survey authorities, had admitted to the fact of taking accommodation entries from certain Kolkata based companies. On the basis of these 'admissions' by the assessee, the AO concluded that the bogus nature of the long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance

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

u/s. 133A given to the survey authorities, had admitted to the fact of taking accommodation entries from certain Kolkata based companies. On the basis of these 'admissions' by the assessee, the AO concluded that the bogus nature of the long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance

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

u/s. 133A given to the survey authorities, had admitted to the fact of taking accommodation entries from certain Kolkata based companies. On the basis of these 'admissions' by the assessee, the AO concluded that the bogus nature of the long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance

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

u/s. 133A given to the survey authorities, had admitted to the fact of taking accommodation entries from certain Kolkata based companies. On the basis of these 'admissions' by the assessee, the AO concluded that the bogus nature of the long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance

ITO, PHULBANI WARD, PHULBANI vs. P. BRAJA KISHORE PATRO, GANJAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-2013

survey u/s. 133A of l.T. Act, 1961 on 23-03-2012, where the assessee had made cash purchases more than Rs. 20,000/- on the basis of which the A.O. had completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) by disallowing

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:

survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the business premises of the assessee on 23.03.2018, based on which, the case of the assesee was taken for compulsory scrutiny. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 30.09.2021 at total income of Rs.5,88,28,630/- as the against the income declared at Rs.53,69,120/-. Against

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MAGNUM ESTATE 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 1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132- Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. A, A, Sector Sector-A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aabcm 8066 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.21/Ctk/2021 (In Ita No.248/Ctk/2017) .248/Ctk/2017) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132- Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), A, A, Sector Sector-A, Zone-A, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcm 8066 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri J.M.Patnaik J.M.Patnaik , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /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 & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar 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.21/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

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

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