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

URMILA KISHAN,ANGUL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

5. Unsecured loan used in the Business can not be treated as Income. Loan are generally taken for day to day payment and return it back after purpose are fulfilled. Appellant is in petrol pump Business, so Big amount of repayment always been required and for that loan is required. An unsecured loan is a financial liability

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

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

139 of the Act, and the Assessing Officer finds that any claim as described therein is inadmissible, he is mandatorily required to serve a notice u/s 143/2) to the P a g e 42 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 assessee specifying particulars of such claim and a date on which he should produce or caused

ARSS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATION CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-2013

68,34,000/- towards interest expenses, out of which, following interest claimed as expenses were not deposited before due date of filing the return of income: Sl.No. Name of the bank Interest (Rs.) 1. IDBI Bank (OD) 7,29,844 2. IDBI Bank(Escrow) 1,64,376 3. SBI, Jajpur 6,46,001 4. Export Import Bank

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

68 or not.... Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., wherein, it was stated that bank statement is not sufficient enough to discharge the burden. Regarding the failure to accord

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

139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal