INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

unexplained money of the assessee. it is to be noted that the Reserve bank of India issued a series of notifications with regard to the deposit of demonetized notes from 8.11.2016 onwards. The RBI, vide notification dated 14.11.2016 clarified that District Central Co-operative Banks can allow their existing customers to withdraw money from their accounts upto Rs.24

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

unexplained money of the assessee. it is to be noted that the Reserve bank of India issued a series of notifications with regard to the deposit of demonetized notes from 8.11.2016 onwards. The RBI, vide notification dated 14.11.2016 clarified that District Central Co-operative Banks can allow their existing customers to withdraw money from their accounts upto Rs.24

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

unexplained money of the assessee. it is to be noted that the Reserve bank of India issued a series of notifications with regard to the deposit of demonetized notes from 8.11.2016 onwards. The RBI, vide notification dated 14.11.2016 clarified that District Central Co-operative Banks can allow their existing customers to withdraw money from their accounts upto Rs.24

RIDDHI SIDDHI GASES PRIVATE LIMITED,KEONJHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2014-15 Riddhi Hi Sidhi Sidhi Gases Gases Pvt Pvt Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd.,At-Bhadrasahi, Bhadrasahi, Po: Po: Cuttack Barbil, Dist: Keonjhar Barbil, Dist: Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aadcr 1309 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/0 03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/0 /03/2024 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), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 2.1.2024 In In Appeal Appeal No. No.Cit(A), Cuttack/10329/2016 9/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014 2014-15. 2. Shri, P.K.Mishra P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, D Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

money to an extent of Rs.3,17,705/ s.3,17,705/- received from Shri Saroj Kumar aroj Kumar Dash. It was the submission that on the ground that notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act to submission that on the ground that notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act to submission that on the ground that notice issued u/s.133

TEKCHAND HARILAL,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

unexplained money and, therefore, same cannot be added u/s.69A of the Act. It is submitted by ld AR that the old SBNs deposited relates to the business receipts. The AO has P a g e 2 | 6 Assessment Year : 2017-18 accepted it as business receipts and sales turnover, therefore, the trading receipts cannot be disallowed

PRADEEP PATI,KENDUJHAR vs. ITO,WARD, KENDUJHAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.540 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pradeep Pati Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Brahmanagaon College Road, Brahmanagaon College Road, Keonjhar Keonjhargarh H. O Kendujahar Onjhargarh H. O Kendujahar Town Kendujhar 758001 Kendujhar 758001 Pan/Gir No.Amaapp 8010 D Amaapp 8010 D (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty , Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 18/11/2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. Nfac/2020- 21/10251602 For The Ass For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Shri P.R.Mohaty, P.R.Mohaty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

money added U/s 69A of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.39,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.71,40,000/- as STCG and an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- towards unexplained term deposit deserves to be allowed and cannot be disallowed

PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

unexplained money under Section 69A as made by the learned Assessing Officer is not correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 4. For that disallowance

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

money is illegal and violative of principle of natural justice and is liable to be annulled. 3. For that the addition of Rs. 1,01,95,050.00 under the head unexplained cash credit is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and is liable to be annulled. 4. For that the CIT(A) without affording adequate opportunity of hearing dismissed the appeal and confirmed

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

money is illegal and violative of principle of natural justice and is liable to be annulled. 3. For that the addition of Rs. 1,01,95,050.00 under the head unexplained cash credit is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and is liable to be annulled. 4. For that the CIT(A) without affording adequate opportunity of hearing dismissed the appeal and confirmed

SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO,JAJPUR vs. DCIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

unexplained money of the assessee which was introduced in the books of account in the garb of advances in various names in cash. 8. With regard to the unsecured loans of Rs.28,05,388/-, it is seen that during the course of hearing the assessee has filed certain details of the loan creditors and after examination of those details

GANESH MILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KARANJIA,MAYURBHANJ,ODISHA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BALESWAR CIRCLE,BALESWAR

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

disallowance vide order dated 08.12.2017. In first appeal, the assessee got no relief, therefore, the present appeal is filed before us. 3. With regard to ground No.1, ld. AR submitted that the AO has made addition of Rs.49,38,608/- by treating the sundry creditors as unexplained, though, all these parties are the supplier of goods to whom the payments

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

M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

disallowance resulting 5 IT(SS)A No.31-44/CTK/2022 & ITA No.109/CTK/2022 in addition to income made for Rs.19,39,60,866/-, is directed to be deleted.” The ITAT by its judgment dated 16th May, 2014 relied on the selfsame reasoning and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Likewise, the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 5th July, 2017, affirmed the judgments

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words "shall be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year". The Supreme Court while interpreting similar phraseology used in section

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

disallowed and shall not be treated as Taxable income' In response to it, it may be submitted here that, during the Assessment year under consideration, the Assessee had sold Agricultural land owned by her. The claim of exempted income is the net value of sale of Agricultural land. For better clarification of this income, your Assessee wants to draw' your

SRI SIBA SHANKAR DAS(DECEZASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. RITANJALI DAS,KALAHANDI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained. The ld. AR placed before me a copy of the bank account of the assessee maintained with State Bank of India Bhawanipatna branch which shows the assessee has withdrawn cash of Rs.1,03,00,000/- and the cash deposit on 02.04.2015. It was the submission that the source for the 2 cash deposit is cash withdrawal