M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1

M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ODISHA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,948 1,11,155 development & welfare exp. 6. Prior period - 69,91,618 61,16,336 67,54,639 - - adjustments P a g e 2 | 52 OPGC Department’s appeals Sr. No. Allowed expenses ITA No.114/C/14 ITA No.288/C/16 ITA No.175/C/16 Asst.yr.11-12 Asst.Yr.12-13 Asst.Yr. 10-11 1 Prior period & prepaid exp. 1

M/S. NIYATI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-2007

131 of IT. Act, 1961 was issued by the assessing officer. It is further, seen from the assessing officer's remand report dated 14.11.2009, regarding individual share holders that they did not submit the evidence about the source of investment made in to the company. The appellant has filed certain documents during the appeal proceedings. It is seen that Ajit

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

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making additions of undisclosed income. Being aggrieved with these additions, the Assessee preferred appeal before the learned C.I.T.(A) and the same was already adjudicated upon. Since, the learned C.I.T.(A) did not allow the appeal, being highly aggrieved and seriously prejudiced, the Appellant/Assessee preferred this present appeal before your

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

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making additions of undisclosed income. Being aggrieved with these additions, the Assessee preferred appeal before the learned C.I.T.(A) and the same was already adjudicated upon. Since, the learned C.I.T.(A) did not allow the appeal, being highly aggrieved and seriously prejudiced, the Appellant/Assessee preferred this present appeal before your

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

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making additions of undisclosed income. Being aggrieved with these additions, the Assessee preferred appeal before the learned C.I.T.(A) and the same was already adjudicated upon. Since, the learned C.I.T.(A) did not allow the appeal, being highly aggrieved and seriously prejudiced, the Appellant/Assessee preferred this present appeal before your

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16. In the remaining cases where the assessment orders passed were not readily available, the assessee has furnished the copies of returns filed by the creditors with the Department along with their statement of income. All the loans were received by the assessee by account payee cheques

BASUKINATH ROADWAYS PVT. LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 (Ker.), and set aside the assessment order u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act and directed the AO to re-do the same afresh after examining the issue in detail. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Pr. CIT, the assessee filed an appeal before Tribunal. 6. Before us, ld. AR reiterated the submissions made in the revision proceedings and submitted

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

68. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that there is no clarity regarding change in accounting method and not clear whether repairs expenses were charged to P&L account and hence, upheld the addition. 69. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee

BHARAT BHUSAN DEO,JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.95/Ctk/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008) Sri Bharat Bhusan Deo, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack At/Po: Baragadia, Dist-Jajpur Pan No. : Aatpd 6411 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G. Nayak, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 22.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2007- 2008 On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Order Of Assessment As Well As The Appellate Order Is Against Law, Weight Of Evidences & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Most Arbitrarily Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee The Amount Of Rs.29,00,000/- Received As Loan On Different Dates From Friends, Relatives & Staff At The Time Of Constraint Of Funds & Utilized In The Business Of M/S Chaitanya Minerals, A Proprietory Concern Of Shri Bharat Bhusan Deo, For The Running & Survival Of The Business, Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Under Which The Same Was Taken. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer Most Arbitrarily Added The Amount Of Rs.29,00,000/-U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act As Income From Undisclosed Source Without Accepting The Fact Of Creditworthiness Of The Persons Giving Loans & The Genuineness Of The Transactions.

1. That the appellant is the proprietor of M/s Chaitanya Minerals and deals with processing and selling of Chrome Ore. During the assessment year 2007-08, due to the business need and to get rid of financial-crisis, the appelant approached his friends, rel-atives and staff for financial help and in the process received refundable interest free unsecured loan

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

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), 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- through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including the deficient enquiry conducted