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 Act is attracted (a) when the assessee fails to prove the genuineness of the transaction that has entered into his book of accounts; (b) when there is no satisfactory explanation provided on the part of the assessee to the AO with respect to the amount credited into the accounts; & (c) when there are documentary evidences

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

14 amount to the income of assessee. It was held that all the parties with regard to which the addition has been made, no new amount was found credited in its account during the year under consideration hence section 68

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, it may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is not satisfactory". 14

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

section 68 in respect of shares application money, in view of fact that address and PAN were not provided for all parties whereas in case of some of share applicants, there were transactions of deposits and immediate withdrawals of money, impugned addition was to be confirmed - Held, yes [Paras 5, 6 and 14

SATYA NARAYAN PRADHAN,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Cash deposits) -Assessment year 2007-08 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had deposited huge amount of cash in his bank account -In view of failure of assessee to explain source of said deposits, Assessing Officer added Asse ssment Year :20 13- 14

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

14. In the grounds of appeal, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,53,96,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head “unexplained money” u/s.69A of the Act. 15. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under appeal, the assessee bank has accepted SBN currency

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

14. In the grounds of appeal, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,53,96,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head “unexplained money” u/s.69A of the Act. 15. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under appeal, the assessee bank has accepted SBN currency

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

14. In the grounds of appeal, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,53,96,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head “unexplained money” u/s.69A of the Act. 15. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under appeal, the assessee bank has accepted SBN currency

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

14. In the grounds of appeal, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,53,96,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head “unexplained money” u/s.69A of the Act. 15. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under appeal, the assessee bank has accepted SBN currency

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

14. In the grounds of appeal, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,53,96,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head “unexplained money” u/s.69A of the Act. 15. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under appeal, the assessee bank has accepted SBN currency

M/S. GOPALPUR PORTS LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.97/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/S Gopalpur Ports Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle-(2), Cuttack Osl Tower, Link Road, Cuttack स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aaccg 6721 F (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.B.Sahu, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 31.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeal) In It Appeal No. 0622/2011-12 Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unsustainable In Law. 2. That The Impugned Addition Of Rs.4,31,15,000/- Representing Share Application Money Of M/S On Track Trading Ltd Purportedly Under Section 68 Of The It Act Is Illegal & Arbitrary. 3. That The Appellant Having Submitted Relevant Evidences With Regard To The Amount Invested By The Said Investing Foreign Company, It Is Not Lawful & Proper To Confirm Addition On The Ground Of Its Want Of Proof Of Credit Worthiness Of The Said Investing Company Which Is Illegal & Arbitrary. 4. That Non Consideration Of The Application Of The Proviso To Section 68 Of The It Act Effective From 01.04.2013 Relied Upon By The Appellant Was Not Considered By Ld. Cit (Appeal) Is Inconsistent With The Relevant Statutory Provisions.

section 68 of the IT Act effective from 01.04.2013 relied upon by the appellant was not considered by Ld. CIT (Appeal) is inconsistent with the relevant statutory provisions. Further, ld. AR submitted that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court relied by the Ld. CIT (Appeal) in Sumati Dayal V/s-

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

68,14,221/-\n10. Other receipts such as maturity from FDs, EMD Refund,\nBackend Received can be traced from bank Statements which is\ngiven in Pg no 209 of Paperbook. (The breakup of the same is\ngiven in Pg no 13 of Paperbook). Also requesting the kind attention\nto Pg no 32 of Paperbook, where the comparison

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by treating the unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits without properly appreciating the submissions, confirmations, and documents provided by the Assessee. Loans have been received through banking channels. It was further stated that all the supporting evidence i.e. account confirmation by of the lenders, copy of ITR of lender, bank statements

KALPANA MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without obtaining prior administrative approval of the concerned Pr. CIT/CIT as prescribed in Circular F. No.225/402/2018/TTA.II, Dated 28-11- 2018, and Instruction No.5/2016 [F.NO.225/269/2015-ITA.11], Dated 14-7-2016." 3.1.2. Ground No-1 goes to the root of the matter being a jurisdiction issue, even though not specifically taken before the 1" appellate

KALINGA INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY (KIIT),BHUBANESWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit Technology (Kiit), Hyderabad Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 7 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

68 or 69 at the rate of 30% and the amount of income tax chargeable on the remaining income determined under normal provisions..” 6. The Ld CIT(E) held that the AO has failed to make proper enquires on the above issues before passing the assessment order, therefore, the order passed u/s.143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

DHANALAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.153/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Vs. Ito, Angul Ward, Angul Laxmi Bazar, Angul-759122 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfd 8791 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, Advs. िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

14 Shankar Prasad ATMPM1929M 3,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank Maheswary, C/o. ITR Copy, Bank statement M/s. Bhutnath Store, Statement, only the page Main Road, Angul- statement of total containing the 759122 income Balance- transaction sheet 15 Gopal AAJHS8141K 4,00,000 Loan confirmation, Bank Mundra(HUF), C/o. ITR Copy, Bank statement M/s. Bhutnath Store, Statement only the page Laxmi

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

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

section 14A read with Rule 8D and disallowed the expenditure as per formula provided under rule 8D. The assessee is stated to have made no fresh investments out of borrowed funds. The Assessing Officer appears to have calculated the disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) observing that administrative expenses cannot be denied to earn exempt income. We, however

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

section 14A read with Rule 8D and disallowed the expenditure as per formula provided under rule 8D. The assessee is stated to have made no fresh investments out of borrowed funds. The Assessing Officer appears to have calculated the disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) observing that administrative expenses cannot be denied to earn exempt income. We, however