DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

deposited the amount in cash of Rs.7,90,000/- before issuing cheque of an amount of P a g e 5 | 9 ITA No.51/ CTK/2016 ITA No.320/CT K/2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12 Rs.8,00,000/- to the assessee on the same day. On perusal of the bank statement of the creditor filed by the assessee, it is observed

DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

deposited the amount in cash of Rs.7,90,000/- before issuing cheque of an amount of P a g e 5 | 9 ITA No.51/ CTK/2016 ITA No.320/CT K/2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12 Rs.8,00,000/- to the assessee on the same day. On perusal of the bank statement of the creditor filed by the assessee, it is observed

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. G.V.V.CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

Appeal of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S G.V.V. Constructions Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.358, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 3649 Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.36/Ctk/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S G.V.V.Constructions Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.358, Bhubaneswar Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccg 3649 Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar In I.T.Appeal No.0593/2013-14, Dated 9-3-2015, Passed U/S.271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Matter Was Called For Hearing. Hence, We Proceed To Dispose Off The Appeal On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & The Submissions Of Ld. Dr. 3. We Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal In Ita No.297/Ctk/2015, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

cash payments exceeding more than Rs.20000/- are paid and transactions are in violation of provisions of Section 40A(3) for Rs.3,52,320/- and the assessee has also not deducted TDS on expenses and violated the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs.8,06,948/- and third addition being the assessee has claimed donation of Rs.20

M/S. SHREE SAI ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2014-2015

u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. In response to the same, Id. AR appeared and case of the assessee was discussed. Thereafter the AO completed the assessment making various additions. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has accepted cash loan amounting to Rs.9,74,499/- from various person in violation of provisions

SUJIT KUMAR BEHERA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2011-12

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act primarily on the ground of cash deposit of Rs.33,02,620/- deposited in the bank by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the addition of Rs.11,45,051/- has been confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal. It is also not in dispute that the penalty

SRI NAMBALLA DHARMA RAO,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhsri Namballa Dharma Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (3), Brpl, 5Th Floor, Bhubaneswar. Ipicol Annex Building, Janpath, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar.

271 (1)(c) and reduced the penalty amount to Rs.2,00,000/- as against the earlier value of Rs.3,07,453/-. 5. For these and other grounds that may emerge at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the said penalty be deleted and the order be quashed to meet the end of justice.” 2. Briefly stated the facts

PRAFULLA KUMAR BIDHARA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.763&764/CTK/2025 2. Shri S. K. Sarangi, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. ITA No.763/CTK/2025 – It was submitted by the ld. AR that there are three issues in the appeal of the assessee. The first issue

PRAFULLA KUMAR BIDHARA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.763/CTK/2025 is partly allowed whereas ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.763&764/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.763&764/CTK/2025 2. Shri S. K. Sarangi, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. ITA No.763/CTK/2025 – It was submitted by the ld. AR that there are three issues in the appeal of the assessee. The first issue

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted. 5. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 3. In grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, assessee has challenged the validity of reopening

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted. 5. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 3. In grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, assessee has challenged the validity of reopening

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,NFAC,DELHI, NFAC DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted. 5. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 3. In grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, assessee has challenged the validity of reopening

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted. 5. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 3. In grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, assessee has challenged the validity of reopening

JAYASISH ROY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

cash deposits. Ld D.R. strongly pointed out that the assessee has taken due care to declare the loan for an amount of Rs.20,000/- or less than Rs.20,000/- to escape from the mischief of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Ld D.R. submitted that the confirmations filed by the assessee does not bear the date of loan. Therefore

JAYASISH ROY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

cash deposits. Ld D.R. strongly pointed out that the assessee has taken due care to declare the loan for an amount of Rs.20,000/- or less than Rs.20,000/- to escape from the mischief of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Ld D.R. submitted that the confirmations filed by the assessee does not bear the date of loan. Therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

penalties were levied by the ACIT,\nRourkela Circle u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide even dated 30.09.2016\nfor A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11.\n2. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay\nof 4 days in filing the appeal by the department and in support of this\na condonation petition was filed