PRAVAKAR SAMANTA,NAHARAPUR vs. ITO, WARD JAJPUR, JAJPUR WARD, JAJPUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.355/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Pravakar Samanta, Vs Ito, Ward Jajpur At-Naharapur, Jajpur Town-755001 Pan No. :Anaps 7558 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 30.11.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058346163(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That There Are Three Additions In Dispute. First, Being An Amount Of Rs.7,85,000/- Representing Sbn Notes Deposited During The Demonetisation Period In The Current Account & Od Account Of The Assessee. Secondly, The Addition Of Rs.8,45,068/- Representing The Time Deposit Of The Assessee Treating The Same As Unexplained Investment Of The Assessee. Thirdly, The Addition Of Rs.1,52,897/- Representing The Deduction Claimed U/S.80C Under Chapter Via On The Payment Made Towards Lic Premium.

unexplained investment in the current year. It was also the submission that the amount of Rs.8,45,068/- as adopted by the AO does not come out of the accounts 4 of the assessee and how the AO has determined this figure is not clear. It was the submission that the addition made by the AO and confirmed

SMT. PURNIMA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Purnima Das, C/O. Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Biswajit Das, At-9, Budha Nagar, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aazpd0112 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit Passed U./S.263 Of The Act, Dated 12.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Reev5/2021-22/10540634159(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee Assisted By Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr & Ms. Simran Samal, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue Assisted By Shri Dharmashoka Panda, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is A Professor Of Mathematics At P.N.College, Khurda. The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year On 5.8.2017

unexplained investment in bank u/s.69 of I.T. Act, 1961. In response to this query, the Assessee respectfully submits that, during the year Assessee sold the Flat No.H-3 situated in under consideration, the 3rd Floor at Sai Suman (Sai Anandam) Apartment, situated at Patia, Bhubaneswar to Smt Laxmi Priya Prusty for a sale consideration of Rs.43

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

disallowance of on account of has from house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

disallowance of on account of has from house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

disallowance of on account of has from house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

disallowance of on account of has from house property as such is not reflected in Form No-16 of Rs 19,517.00 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment u/s 143(3) row's 147 of the lncome Tax Act, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (A) Cuttack. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (A), (NFAC

KALPANA MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

unexplained. The assesee has also claimed that it had incurred loss from share transaction business of Rs.16.88 lakhs, however, as the same was related to share transactions and since such loss was not declared by the assesee in the return of income filed, the AO has taken no cognizance of the same. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC

SRIPRAKASH PANY,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year :2010-11

disallowed, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is wrong in endorsing the action of the Ld. AO, therefore the deduction of 1.65 672 is to be allowed u/s 10(13A) of the Act. 4. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in facts and circumstances in not considering the submission of the assesseee that the assessee does

ANUP AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.209/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Anup Agarwal Vs Ito, Ward-1,Rourkela Qr No Tt-9,Civil Township, Rourkela, Sundergarh- 769009 Pan No. : Afvpa 0968 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

disallowed the entire investments and the gain and brought to the entire sale consideration of 80,000 shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. as unexplained

NIRMALA CHHOTRAY,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, ROURKELA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.254/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Nirmala Chhotray, Deogaon, Vs Ito, Ward-5, Rourkela Rourkela, Sundergarh 769004 Pan No. : Aarpc 6461 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K. Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/092025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

disallowed the entire investments and the gain and brought to the entire sale consideration of 1,37,000 shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. as unexplained

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

unexplained cash deposit in the bank account, ₹2,20,309/- as FDR with Oriental Bank of Commerce, ₹5,80,067/- as Expenditure disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, ₹24,84,000/- as loss on sale of investment

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

unexplained cash deposit in the bank account, ₹2,20,309/- as FDR with Oriental Bank of Commerce, ₹5,80,067/- as Expenditure disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, ₹24,84,000/- as loss on sale of investment

KASHINATH PANDA,BHADRAK vs. ITO BHADRA, BHADRAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2017-18 Kashinath Kashinath Panda, Panda, Vs. Ito, Bhadrak, Bhadrak Ito, Bhadrak, Bhadrak Charampa, Bhadrak, Odisha Charampa, Bhadrak, Odisha Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Blgpp 0534 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/0 /06/2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Aga This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 23.3.2024 23.3.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10478/2018 Cuttack/10478/2018-20 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Mohit Sheth, Mohit Sheth,Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri The Assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

investment during the year in his balance sheet. The assessee admittedly does not gain any specific benefit by showing higher agricultural income. In fact, the assessee, herein, actually suffers from on account of disclosure of higher agricultural income insofar as the agricultural income gets added to the regular income for the purpose of computing of the tax and this would

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