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, 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 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

CHANDI FILLING STATION,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Chandi Chandi Filling Filling Station, Station, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Manguli, Cuttack Manguli, Cuttack Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aacfc 8350 K (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

unexplained money. In respect of interest paid to Bajaj Finance Ltd., it was the submission that the amount had been paid in lumpsum and it included principal and interest and Bajaj Finance Ltd was not cooperating in providing Form 10 BA to show that the amount has been disclosed by them in their return. In respect of other issues

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLER-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S.LAND & WATER PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am (Through : Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.424/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Land & Water Projects Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.14(W), Ashok Nagar Bhubaneswar-751002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Panno. : Aabcl 6312 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate

unexplained share application money' when the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of Shri Srinibas Sahoo, Director of the company. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in course of the appeal proceedings. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the civil

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

SMT. SANJUKTA PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance 1 Unexplained 62,05,000/- 1. Learned CIT (A) has rejected the investment appellant's claim basing on the statement U/s.69ofthel.T of Sri. Sarbeswar Sahu (M.D) of the Act 1961. Bhulaxmi Realcon Private Limited (Purchaser of land) who has categorically stated before the AO that he has not given any cash to the appellant. 2. Learned

SMT. PRAGYAN MOHANTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2011-12

unexplained money ignoring the accounting system consistently followed by the assessee. 10. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer observing that the discrepancies noticed by the Assessing Officer have not been explained separately by the assessee by bringing any materials and, therefore, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. 11. Before me, ld Authorised Representative

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

unexplained cash credit in the form of share application when the existence, credit worthiness and genuineness of the share holders was not proved. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in deleting the difference in sundry creditors balance of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was based on verification of balance when

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

M/S. JAYA MANGALA CONSTRUCTION,KORAPUT vs. ITO, WARD-1, JEYPORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2005-06

disallowing depreciation expenses to the tune of Rs.3,33,667.00, particular when, the claim of the Assessee is true and correct and needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. 6. For that, the learned Forums below should not have added back Rs.22,919.00, the closing bank balance as unexplained money

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

B.GUPTESWAR PATRA,NABARANGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance u/s.14A r.w 8D. Therefore, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Ld counsel submitted that in this case, the ITAT had set aside the order of the Commissioner passed u/s.263 of the Act, by observing that when the AO has taken a view then the pr. CIT cannot substitute

SUBHASHREE SUNDARAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

unexplained money which is gift received by the appellant at the time of marriage and for which same is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual and filed the return of income on 30.08.2010 for the A.Y.2010-2011 declaring total income of Rs.1,90,500/-. The return of income