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

56 DTR. AT 386), admittedly, the assessee was an individual and the amounts in question had been received by his proprietary concern M/s Parth Enterprises from another entity namely, Shri Rajendra Suryavanshi (HUF), which was the HUF of the assessee. The aspect as to whether a transaction of funds of a sister concern used by another sister concern would amount

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

56 DTR. AT 386), admittedly, the assessee was an individual and the amounts in question had been received by his proprietary concern M/s Parth Enterprises from another entity namely, Shri Rajendra Suryavanshi (HUF), which was the HUF of the assessee. The aspect as to whether a transaction of funds of a sister concern used by another sister concern would amount

SYLVESA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD -1(1), BHUBANESWAR

56 &\n57 containing the invoices of the said parties, requesting attention\nto pg no 128 & 129 containing the ledger of the same party,\nconfirming the transactions through sales entry and its realisation.\nb. Requesting the attention of my lord to Pg No 43 again Sl No 16-\nDistrict Land Record Survey-Balasore, req attn to page

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

56,94,020 is liable to be deleted. 4. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the additions of cash deposits of Rs.11,50,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act as these cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted

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

56,94,020 is liable to be deleted. 4. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the additions of cash deposits of Rs.11,50,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act as these cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted

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

56,94,020 is liable to be deleted. 4. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the additions of cash deposits of Rs.11,50,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act as these cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted

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

56,94,020 is liable to be deleted. 4. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the additions of cash deposits of Rs.11,50,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act as these cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted