M/S. PRAGATI MILK PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act relating to levy of penalty @ 10% or 20

M/S. PRAMOD KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act relating to levy of penalty @ 10% or 20

M/S. PRAKASH KUMAR ROUT,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

Section 271AAB(3) of the Act. In the notice issued to the assessee there is no mention about the various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act relating to levy of penalty @ 10% or 20

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

penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under :- 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In the decision reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), this Court had an occasion to consider

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

penalty levied u/s.271D of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under :- 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In the decision reported in 304 ITR 417 (CIT V. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited), this Court had an occasion to consider

PANDA INFRATECH LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Panda Panda Infratech Infratech Limited, Limited, Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Plot Plot No.620, No.620, Janpath, Janpath, Income Tax, Central Circle- Income Tax, Central Circle Saheed Saheed Nagar, Nagar, 2, Bhubaneswar. 2, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aafcp7216 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & C.A.Parida & C.A.Parida, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orde Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 Dated 10.8.2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10013/2018 2/10013/2018-19 Against Against The The Penalty Penalty Order Order Passed Passed U/S.271Aab Of The Act U/S.271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

section 271AAB of the Act makes the alleged notice defective and invalid and thus deserves to be quashed. Since the penalty proceeding itself has been quashed the impugned penalty of Rs. 83,02,410/- stands deleted. Thus the assessee succeeds on legal ground challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act. 14. Since the penalty

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

10. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs.2,47,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 was issued on 12.3.2014 and the inappropriate words

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

10. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs.2,47,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 was issued on 12.3.2014 and the inappropriate words

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

20 11- 12 imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the AO has to prove that there was concealment of particulars of income or assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 10. Bare perusal of the notice issued to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act reproduced above goes to prove that assessee has not been called

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

20% should be restored and that of the CIT(A) be reversed.” 3. At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issues involved in these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dillip Kumar Naik in IT(ss)A Nos.4

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

20% should be restored and that of the CIT(A) be reversed.” 3. At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issues involved in these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dillip Kumar Naik in IT(ss)A Nos.4

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

20% should be restored and that of the CIT(A) be reversed.” 3. At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issues involved in these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dillip Kumar Naik in IT(ss)A Nos.4

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

20% should be restored and that of the CIT(A) be reversed.” 3. At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issues involved in these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dillip Kumar Naik in IT(ss)A Nos.4

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

20% should be restored and that of the CIT(A) be reversed.” 3. At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issues involved in these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dillip Kumar Naik in IT(ss)A Nos.4

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

20% should be restored and that of the CIT(A) be reversed.” 3. At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issues involved in these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dillip Kumar Naik in IT(ss)A Nos.4

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

20% should be restored and that of the CIT(A) be reversed.” 3. At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issues involved in these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dillip Kumar Naik in IT(ss)A Nos.4

SAMBIT RESORTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

20,000/-, Rs.22,45,000/- invested during the relevant previous year was found to be unexplained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the same u/s.69 of the Act. He also made addition of Rs.2 lakhs on account of unexplained cash payment to Smt. Sharmila Mitra as per money receipt seized in the course of search. 9. On appeal

NIROD KUMAR SAHOO,MEENABAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,DHENKANAL WARD,DHENKANAL, DHENKANAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2012-13 Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Nirod Kumar Sahoo, Meena Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bazar, Dhenkanal Bazar, Dhenkanal-759001 Dhenkanal Dhenkanal Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Ahups 4395 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Natabar Panda, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/0 04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/0 /04/2024

20 for the assessment year 2012-13 . 2. Shri Natabar Natabar Panda, ld AR appeared for the assessee ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 152 days