SRI SUKHAMAYA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2013-14 Sri Sukhmaya Das, Sri Sukhmaya Das, At-N/3/69, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), 3(1), Irc Irc Village, Village, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aeppd 2993 A Aeppd 2993 A (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /06/20 /2021 O R D E R

section 68 of the I.T.Act by determining unexplained cash deposit, where as the cash deposits are very well explained from the sale of agricultural products being deposited in the bank account. 2. Addition of Rs.1,15,028/-. For that the AO has failed to taking into consideration the evidences in support of claim of rebate u/s.80C

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

section 68 of the Act. In view of above we find no reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A). Hence this ground of Revenue is dismissed. " 4. The AO in our view was confused. He at para (3) of his order states that the addition u/s 68 of the Act and at para 3.6 states that

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

5 Director Environment cum Special Secretary, Member P a g e 7 | 44 S.P.No.11/CTK/2024 ITA N o.301/CTK /2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 Govt. of Odisha, FE & CC Department or his nominee 6 Director of Factories & Boilers, Bhubaneswar Member or his nominee 7 Commissioner, Bhubaneswar Municipal Member Corporation, Bhubaneswar, Dist.: -Khurda 8 Commissioner, Berhampur Municipal Member Corporation, Berhampur, Dist.: -Ganjam

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

68 years, lives in a remote village Chandeipur about 20 KM from Salipur.The learned first appellate authority (NFAC), Delhi without considering the true facts of the matter, available documents, corresponding settled position of law etc., failed to apply his adjudicating skill and dismissed the appeal vide order dated. 10-01-2023. such order passed by the authority with a clear

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

68 years, lives in a remote village Chandeipur about 20 KM from Salipur.The learned first appellate authority (NFAC), Delhi without considering the true facts of the matter, available documents, corresponding settled position of law etc., failed to apply his adjudicating skill and dismissed the appeal vide order dated. 10-01-2023. such order passed by the authority with a clear

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

68 years, lives in a remote village Chandeipur about 20 KM from Salipur.The learned first appellate authority (NFAC), Delhi without considering the true facts of the matter, available documents, corresponding settled position of law etc., failed to apply his adjudicating skill and dismissed the appeal vide order dated. 10-01-2023. such order passed by the authority with a clear

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

68 years, lives in a remote village Chandeipur about 20 KM from Salipur.The learned first appellate authority (NFAC), Delhi without considering the true facts of the matter, available documents, corresponding settled position of law etc., failed to apply his adjudicating skill and dismissed the appeal vide order dated. 10-01-2023. such order passed by the authority with a clear

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident is an amount which is not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee may not have made an application under section 18(3B) [now section 195(2)]. The application

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. Having heard learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department (Appellant) and having perused the impugned orders of the AO, CIT(A) and the ITAT, the Court finds that both the grounds viz., the claim for benefit of Section 10(38) of the Act and denial of an opportunity to cross examine the entry providers, turned on facts

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SMT. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India