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.

200/- was paid through cash during the FY 2009-10 and Rs. 4,04,100/- was paid through cheque during the FY 2010-11. The learned assessing officer by misconstruing - the provision of law as is contemplated U/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 has wrongly assessed the income U/s. 144/254 of Income Tax Act,1961 at Rs.80

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

200/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s.143(2) and 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

POOJA SPONGE PRAIVATE LIMITED,SUNDARGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL, SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Pooja Pooja Sponge Sponge Private Private Vs. Acit, Central, Sambalpur Acit, Central, Sambalpur Limited., Idc, Plot No.214, Limited., Idc, Plot No.214, Kalunga, Rourkela. Kalunga, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaccp 9822 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bajoria, Ar A, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01 /01/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, 2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 23.3.2022 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. 2/10592/2017-18 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri K.K.Bajoria, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri K.K.Bajoria, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri K.K.Bajoria, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

section 68 of the Act. It was the submission that the assessee had provided the confirmation letters. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) had without considering the evidences produced by the assessee, dismissed the assessee’s appeal. It was the submission that even though the remand report had been called, the assessee was not given adequate

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Income tax Act. In our considered view, the AO is justified in making the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- and ld CIT(A) is fully correct in confirming the same. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. ITA No.320/CTK/2018: 10. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty

DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,DHENKANAL vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Income tax Act. In our considered view, the AO is justified in making the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- and ld CIT(A) is fully correct in confirming the same. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. ITA No.320/CTK/2018: 10. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/- and Rs.2,95,840/- and MATY of Rs.21,90,642/-. 24. In pursuance to search conducted on 6.8.2014, proceedings u/s.153A was initiated in the case of the assessee for the assessment years under consideration. In pursuance to these proceedings, the impugned orders of assessment was passed on 28.12.2016, where, additions of Rs.9,94,50,000/- and Rs.15