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

68 of the Act in respect of the unsecured loans taken by the assessee, it was submitted that these loans were the same amounts which have been treated by the Pr. CIT as being liable for deemed dividend. It was the submission that these loans had been specifically examined by the Assessing Officer in the course of ‘e’ assessment

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

142(1)", "Section 147", "Section 68", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 133(6)"], "issues": "Whether the assessee

G R C GARMENTS PARTNERSHIP FIRM ,NANDI SAHI, BUXI BAZAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), CUTTACK , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHHAK

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 383/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Grc Garments Partnership Firm,….…….,…Appellant Cuttack Sadar, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-753001, Odisha [Pan:Aaefg7391N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Ward-1(1), Cuttack, Tulasipur, Cuttack-753008, Odisha Appearances By: Shri Diganta Das, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

68 of the Act. As no reply on received loan from Avinash Chhapolia for an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- and from Ms. Shardha Chhapolia of Rs.4,00,000/- in response to notice under section 142

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-

section 142(1) of the Act in 'limited scrutiny cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny. Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the 'limited scrutiny' issues. c. These cases shall be completed expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. 3.1.24. Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph

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 Bansal-Separators-and-Spares-Pvt-Ltd-Vs-ITO-ITAT-Mumbai sec 68.pdf 8. Any-Other-Ground Additional Grounds The Appellant hereby craves to submit additional Grounds , evidence , documents , explanation , Judicial Pronouncements etc during the ITAT proceedings in order explain its position to obtain adequate relief.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed

SAMIR KUMAR PAIKARAY,KHURDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KHURDA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 382/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Samir Kumar Paikaray,………….………….,…Appellant Sriram Nagar, Khurdha, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha [Pan:Ahcpp4275D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Khurda Ward, Khurda, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha Appearances By: Shri K.K. Bal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

142(1) of the Act were issued electronically and served on the assessee in the given e-mail ID. In response to the notices, the assessee-firm filed submissions through e- filing account electronically from time to time. After examining, it was found that the assessee maintained four bank accounts in different banks wherein cash deposits during demonetization period were

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

142(1) and therefore the revisional order passed u/s 263 is illegal and liable to be quashed. 5. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in law in directing the Ld. Assessing Officer to denovo assessment after making enquiry of alleged anonymous donation and difference of closing balance as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) passed

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. KAUSHAL ERR METAL PVT. LTD, SUNDERGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

142(1) were issued along with questionnaire. In compliance to notice ld. AR of the assessee appeared and produced the details of financial statements, and documents on perusal of the Balance Sheet, the AO found that there is an increase in share premium amount and during the financial year the equity shares were allotted with the premium

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

142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income- tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MAGNUM TELESOFT PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.82/Ctk/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Magnum Telesoft Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., 132-A, Sector- A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-10 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca 1519 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan,Citdr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty & M.Ganesh, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Passed In Itappeal No.0542/2014-15, Dated 3.12.2015, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.48,07,984/- Made By The Ao U/S.68 On Account Of Unsecured Loan. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting The Examination Of Findings Made By The Ao On The Issue. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Medical Transcription & Filed The Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On 10.03.2011 With Total

142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance, the ld. AR appeared from time to time and produced the books of accounts, cash book, ledger copies and bills and vouchers are test checked. In the assessment proceedings, the AO on perusal of the balance sheet found that the assessee company has disclosed Loan Fund in Schedule B Rs.48

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 National National Aluminium Aluminium Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(2), Company Limited., Nalco Company Limited., Nalco Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhawan, Bhawan, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacn 7449 M (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca & Shri P. Venugopal Rao, Ca Venugopal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961/6090 Sir/ Madam/ M/s, In connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 you are required to: a) Furnish or cause to be furnished on or before 16/11/2018 at 11:00 AM the accounts and documents specified overleaf b) Furnish and verified in the prescribed manner under Rule 14 of IT. Rules

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

142 Taxman 1). The ITO 8 assessed the total income of the assessee after granting exemption to income from agriculture and poultry farming. The Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 263 on the ground that in making the assessment, the ITO did not make any enquiry or investigation as regards the nature, source or extent of income derived from agriculture

AES ORISSA DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

142(1) of the Act along with 2 questionnaire was issued to the assessee. Since there was no compliance by the assessee, the AO based on the information available on record and dealt on the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act made the best judgment assessment under provisions of Section 144 of the Act and made

OOMKAR TECHNICAL SERVICES (P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE,1(2),, BHUBANESWAR

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.119/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Omkar Technical Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Plot No.1407/9200, Dgm Bhubaneswar Residency, Satya Vihar, Nh-16, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabco 4283 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Gouri Mohan Rath, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr

section 142(1) of the income Tax Act,1961 vide Letter No - 10112 dated 1st December,2017 for final hearing on 12th December,2017. It seems that the assessing officer was in a hurry mood to dispose of the case without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The Ld CIT (A) has overlooked this point and also not discussed

SHRI MANPREET SINGH,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

142(1) of the Act 17.10.2017, the assessee filed written submissions 3 on 30.11.2017, explaining that the assessee deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash on 26.06.2009 in his bank account is out of the past savings. However, the AO framed the assessment on the date of filing of written submission by the assessee i.e. on 30.11.2017, without issuing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Act and questionnaire to the assessee and in compliance to the submissions the AO having satisfied with the submissions as per the questionnaire has completed the assessment and assessed income of Rs.1,08,48,050/- with disallowances, whereas we found that the AO subsequently upon the search proceedings has called for the various information in respect

RAMESWAR AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Rameswar Agro Industries Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd,, Plot No.61/143, Bagwanpur Industrial Estate, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, Khurda-751019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr 0805 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 22.06.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0010/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Ld. Ar For The Assessee Has Filed An Adjournment Petition Seeking Adjournment On The Ground That Required Papers & Information In The Matter Could Not Be Collected From The Assessee, Which In Our Opinion, Is Not A Plausible One, Accordingly We Reject The Adjournment Petition & Appeal Is Heard Finally. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Assessment Passed By The Forums Below Are Not Just & Proper Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, As Such The Addition Made Therein Is Liable To Be Deleted In The Interest Of Justice.

section 68 has no application to the fact of the case, as such, the addition of unsecured loan of Rs.85,50,000.00 by the Forums below, being illegal, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, your Appellant craves leave of This Hon'ble Tribunal to urge any other grounds, if any, at the time

CLASSIC SUPER CONSTRUCTION,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

Section 68 of the Act would reveal that it would not apply to a situation where account books have not been rejected. We find no reason to differ from the opinion recorded by the Tribunal and, therefore, answer the questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. CLASSIC SUPER CONSTRUCTION, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

Section 68 of the Act would reveal that it would not apply to a situation where account books have not been rejected. We find no reason to differ from the opinion recorded by the Tribunal and, therefore, answer the questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed