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

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 :-

56,090/-. Subsequently the AO issued notice u/s.274 of the Act for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO in the penalty proceedings observed that the AO in assessment proceedings has made addition of expenses where cash payments exceeding more than Rs.20000/- are paid and transactions are in violation of provisions of Section

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

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

271(l)(a)(i). If we find that language to be ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one, then we have to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly so because the provision relates to imposition of penalty. " The proposition which was laid down by this Court was that if two reasonable constructions of taxing statute

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

271(l)(a)(i). If we find that language to be ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one, then we have to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly so because the provision relates to imposition of penalty. " The proposition which was laid down by this Court was that if two reasonable constructions of taxing statute

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

271(l)(a)(i). If we find that language to be ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one, then we have to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly so because the provision relates to imposition of penalty. " The proposition which was laid down by this Court was that if two reasonable constructions of taxing statute

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,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

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