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

3, 4, 6, and 7. However, in respect of all the 21 creditors the assessee has furnished their complete addresses along with GIR numbers/permanent account numbers as well as confirmations along with the copies of assessment orders passed in the cases of creditors at serial

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

section 194A(3)(iii)(f), the Central Government notifies the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi for non-deduction of TDS. As the issue is covered by the said notification of CBDT and as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the Notification (supra), we find no error in the order

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

section 194A(3)(iii)(f), the Central Government notifies the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi for non-deduction of TDS. As the issue is covered by the said notification of CBDT and as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the Notification (supra), we find no error in the order

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

section 194A(3)(iii)(f), the Central Government notifies the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi for non-deduction of TDS. As the issue is covered by the said notification of CBDT and as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the Notification (supra), we find no error in the order

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

section 194A(3)(iii)(f), the Central Government notifies the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi for non-deduction of TDS. As the issue is covered by the said notification of CBDT and as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the Notification (supra), we find no error in the order

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

section 194A(3)(iii)(f), the Central Government notifies the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi for non-deduction of TDS. As the issue is covered by the said notification of CBDT and as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the Notification (supra), we find no error in the order

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

section 194A(3)(iii)(f), the Central Government notifies the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi for non-deduction of TDS. As the issue is covered by the said notification of CBDT and as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the Notification (supra), we find no error in the order

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

section 194A(3)(iii)(f), the Central Government notifies the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi for non-deduction of TDS. As the issue is covered by the said notification of CBDT and as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the Notification (supra), we find no error in the order

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

section 194A(3)(iii)(f), the Central Government notifies the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi for non-deduction of TDS. As the issue is covered by the said notification of CBDT and as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the Notification (supra), we find no error in the order

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

section 194A(3)(iii)(f), the Central Government notifies the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi for non-deduction of TDS. As the issue is covered by the said notification of CBDT and as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance by following the Notification (supra), we find no error in the order

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

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

131 of the Act in the course of the assessment proceedings revealed, viz. that the assessee had no understanding of the company in which he had claimed to have made the investment; that the assessee had never in the past invested as a preferential share allottee; that the assessee did not understand the meaning of preferential allotment and stock split

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.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has preferred IT Appeal No. 152/2014-15 before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Cuttack, Odisha which was finally heard and disposed of by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Cuttack, Odisha vide order dt. 22.01.2016. The learned Commissioner while dealing with the issue only relied on the order of assessment passed

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHA,BARIPADA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-2014

131 of the Act, wherever doubt arise after their response to the requisition u/s 133(6), iv. Decide on the chargeability of the above sum Rs3,87,03,162 representing unexplained cash credit in the form of unsecured loans and sundry creditors, to income tax as the income in addition to the returned income of the assessee for the assessment

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

131 of the Act in the course of the assessment proceedings revealed, viz. that the assessee had no understanding of the company in which he had claimed to have made the investment; that the assessee had never in the past invested as a preferential share allottee; that the assessee did not understand the meaning of preferential allotment and stock split

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

68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through an unregistered gift deed