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

Section 69A as made by the learned Assessing Officer is not correct on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 4. For that disallowance of cost of acquisition of the property at Rs. 1,57,53,865/-and claim of deduction of Rs.82,46,135/- u/s.54 totalling to Rs.2,40,00,000/-and addition of the same

MONALISA PRADHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

penalty levied and confirmed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 02. Shri Niranjan panda represented on behalf the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf of the Revenue. 03. In respect of the ITA No. 184/CTK/2025, being the quantum appeal, it was submitted by the Learned AR that the assessee

MONALISA PRADHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

penalty levied and confirmed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 02. Shri Niranjan panda represented on behalf the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf of the Revenue. 03. In respect of the ITA No. 184/CTK/2025, being the quantum appeal, it was submitted by the Learned AR that the assessee

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

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. 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

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

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. 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

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

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. 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

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

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. 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