GOPI KRISHNA PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

unexplained receipt of cash/unexplained deposit and, accordingly, brought the same to tax. 8. On appeal, ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer observing as under: “So far as gifts of Rs.15,00,000/- from the relatives of the appellant is concerned, again on consideration of the facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the action

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

unexplained income deposited in the bank account and added same back to the total income of the assessee. It was submitted that in respect of the issue of agricultural income, the advance sale of land, income from house property and brokerage & commission, had been considered by the AO and had been specifically accepted by the AO after due examination

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

unexplained investment U/s. 69 read with Section 68, being just 86 proper be upheld 8& the departmental ground on this account be dismissed. 3. For that even if assuming but not admitting that as held by the CIT (A) the disclosed receipt of Rs. 29,61,593/- disclosed under the head business income voluntarily are to be treated as rental

SRI BASUDEV PANIGRAHI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-2011

property to some other persons. In the circumstances, the Assessing officer disbelieved the explanation of the assessee and made an addition of Rs.34,14,400/- under the head unexplained investment in house

MAMATA DAS,KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

unexplained investment. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee did not produce corroborating evidence such as copy of bank account or receipt of any money from sale of any investments or property to support its contention that she had enough cash with him to make the investment

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.

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) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

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.

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) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

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.

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) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

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.

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) dismissed the appeal without applying his judicial

SRI BHABANI SANKAR ROUTRAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

unexplained investment. 3. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. The brief facts of the case are Asse ssment Year :20 11- 12 that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.41,68,500/- in Saving Bank account No.909010035424513 maintained in Axis Bank, Jatni. Further

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. POSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.09/Ctk/2020 (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

unexplained. There is no material on record to suggest that the interest earned from the fixed deposits and dividend earned from mutual funds was inseparably connected with the business activity of the. assessee or it was commercially utilized prior to the commencement of the business. The assessee company has not made out the case that the deposits were kept with

BHAGABAN NATH,KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

unexplained investment of the assessee. 4. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he has sold his house for Rs.21,00,000/- and paid tax of Rs.91,956/- during the year under appeal. Out of the sale proceeds, he has invested Rs.6,00,000/- during the year in appeal towards his contribution in the capital

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. JAGANNATH CHAUDHURY, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

unexplained investment u/s.69C by the AO is nothing but the amount pertaining to credit balance of deceased partner Smt. Rama Devi, which was transferred to unsecured loan after her death, resulting into difference in closing and opening balance of unsecured loan amount. In view of above, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity in the order

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

properties with Punjab & National Housing Finance Ltd., and State Bank of India. The date of creation of the charge being in 2018. In the balance sheet of M/s. Tribhuvan Tradecom Pvt Ltd., under assets, the land has been shown at Rs.10,79,20,150/- in the case of M/s. Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited for the year ended 31.3.2016. He further

RASID KHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.77/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009) Mr.Rasid Khan, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Flat No.A-3/5, Bhubaneswar Chandrama Apartment, Unit-3, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aefpk 0922 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 10.11.2017 For Assessment Year 2008-2009, On The Following Grounds :- 1) For That The Orders Of The Forums Below Are Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjust & Excessive In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2) For That The Learned Cit(A) Should Have Allowed The Appeal In Full, But In Twisting The Facts He Has Allowed The Appeal In Part, Which Is Liable To Be Modified/Set-Aside. 3) For That The Appellant Has Got Sufficient Source To Explain The Investment Of Rs.25,78,715/-,But The First Cit(A) Allowed Rs.5,00,000/- & Second Cit(A) Allowed Rs. 12,38,363, Thus Totaling Rs.17,38,363/-, Hence The Balance Rs.8,40,352/- Being Explainable Should Be Allowed In Toto. 4) For That Out Of Total Addition Of Rs.20,75,715/-, Which Remained For Consideration Of The Learned Cit(A), He Allowed Only Rs.12,38,363/- Although All The Material Facts Were Before Him, Hence For Explaining The Balance Of Rs.8,40,352/- The Appeal Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

unexplained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.25,78,715/- is confirmed to the extent of Rs.20,78,715/- and the appellant get relief of Rs.5 lacs”. A copy of the First Appeal order is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-2. 12. That the appellant as against the order of Learned CIT(A) filed Second Appeal at this Forum

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

property should be Zero whereas the Ld. AO estimated at Rs.2,40,000/- . Therefore, the additions of Rs.1,29,797/- made under the head should be deleted. 5. That, the Ld. AO erred in facts I n rejecting the books of account without any plausible justification and the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in confirming the action

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

house property, business and profession and other sources and balance sheet was filed along with supportive financial statement. The Id AR's contention that the assessee was holding the cash for the business operations at Jaipur and there is no malafide intension and the said transaction was disclosed in the income tax return. Further the Id. AR emphasized that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

house property, business and profession and other sources and balance sheet was filed along with supportive financial statement. The Id AR's contention that the assessee was holding the cash for the business operations at Jaipur and there is no malafide intension and the said transaction was disclosed in the income tax return. Further the Id. AR emphasized that