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

Section 139(1) for AY 2014-15 could not be filed\ndue to management disturbances. Notice U/s 148 dated\n28.07.2022 was issued to the assessee alleging that the return of\nincome for the impugned AY has not been filed by the assessee\nthough there are credits of Rs. Rs. 11,73,40,969/-in the bank\naccounts

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above noted factors

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court

LADI SRINIVAS RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA WARD, RAYAGADA, RAYAGADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2009-2010

section 68 cannot be sustained. 9. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. 8 IT A No. 394 /CT K/20 14 Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201 0 10. I find that in the instant case, the assessee claimed to have been received Rs.4,56,000/- from his father Shri L. Anand

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

112 (Orissa. HC)’. In the decided case question came for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court was as under: “2.(iii). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is adjudicate on a question of law raised before instead

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

68,220.00 Rs. 15,00,000.00 Rs.15,00,000.00 2015-16 Rs.3,19,320.00 Rs. 33,56,820.00 Rs. 30,37,500.00 R.s.30,37,500.00 2016-17 Rs.3,28,800.00 Rs.1,29,55,340.00 Rs.1,26,26,535.00 Rs. 9,73,821.00 That, four Appeals are pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication i.e. for Assessment years

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

68,220.00 Rs. 15,00,000.00 Rs.15,00,000.00 2015-16 Rs.3,19,320.00 Rs. 33,56,820.00 Rs. 30,37,500.00 R.s.30,37,500.00 2016-17 Rs.3,28,800.00 Rs.1,29,55,340.00 Rs.1,26,26,535.00 Rs. 9,73,821.00 That, four Appeals are pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication i.e. for Assessment years

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

68,220.00 Rs. 15,00,000.00 Rs.15,00,000.00 2015-16 Rs.3,19,320.00 Rs. 33,56,820.00 Rs. 30,37,500.00 R.s.30,37,500.00 2016-17 Rs.3,28,800.00 Rs.1,29,55,340.00 Rs.1,26,26,535.00 Rs. 9,73,821.00 That, four Appeals are pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication i.e. for Assessment years