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

disallowed the cost of I.T.A. No.: 175/CTK/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prafulla Kumar Routray. acquisition of the property at ₹1,57,53,865/- and claim of deduction of ₹82,46,135/- u/s 54 of the Act totalling to ₹2,40,00,000/- and added the same to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee

THE KORAPUT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,JEYPORE, KORAPUT vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, on 29.09.2021 assessing the total income at Rs. 14,80,76,031/-. 3. In the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act, dated 29.09.2021, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and had levied penalty vide order dated 30.03.2022 at Rs.4,53,85,623/- being

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

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted

SAHOO DIOSTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST,CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AAYAKAR BHAWAN

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted

SAHOO DISTRIBNUTORS (P) LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted

SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASST.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,SHELTER SQUARE,

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal

disallowing purchase expenses of Rs.22,30,000.00 by applying provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in not considering the business exigency and application of Rule 6DD of I.T. Rules, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeal) thus, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDING & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

SERAJUDDIN & CO,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.224 To 230/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2020 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2009 04 To 2009-2010

271(l)(c) for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and penalty u/s 271AAA for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. That Ground No. 13 in respect of appeals for AYs 2003-04 to 2006-07 and Ground No. 11 in respect of appeals for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 are that impugned penalties imposed on the basis

BISWA RANJAN PATTNAIL,ANGUL vs. ITO, DHENKANAL

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-07

penalty of Rs.29,280/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, ld A.R. of the assessee has filed additional ground. However, he did not press the additional ground and made an endorsement Asse ssment Year : 20 06- 07 to this effect. Therefore, we dismiss the additional ground of appeal of the assessee