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

unexplained cash or unaccounted deposit. This section is definitely not intended to penalize genuine transactions where no tax evasion is involved. It is well-settled that the headings prefixed to sections or set of sections in some modern statutes are regarded as preambles" to these sections. This view was approved by Farewel L.J. in Fletcher vs. Birkenhead Corporation

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

unexplained cash or unaccounted deposit. This section is definitely not intended to penalize genuine transactions where no tax evasion is involved. It is well-settled that the headings prefixed to sections or set of sections in some modern statutes are regarded as preambles" to these sections. This view was approved by Farewel L.J. in Fletcher vs. Birkenhead Corporation

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

money receipt seized in the course of search. 9. On appeal, the CIT(A) after considering the evidences on record and facts of the case, reduced addition under the head “unexplained Asse ssment Years: 200 5-0 6 & 2 006 -07 investment” to Rs.11,75,000/- while confirming Rs.2 lakhs on account of unexplained cash payment. 10. Thereafter, the Assessing

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

unexplained money under 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

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

unexplained money of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. It was a submission that the Learned CIT (A) had also confirmed the same. It was the further submission that in application u/s 154 of the Act filed by the assessee, the AO instead of verifying the details questioned the assessee as to why the assessee did not provide

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

unexplained money of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. It was a submission that the Learned CIT (A) had also confirmed the same. It was the further submission that in application u/s 154 of the Act filed by the assessee, the AO instead of verifying the details questioned the assessee as to why the assessee did not provide

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

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. 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

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

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. 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

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

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. 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

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

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. 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

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