RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

68 of the income tax act in the instant case is not reasonable and uncalled-for. 6.6 In view of the above discussion, we found merit in contention of the assessee and, accordingly this ground of appeal of the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee. 7 7. Ground 2 relates to disallowance of statutory dues

DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR vs. ALLIED INFRA SUPPLIERS, GANJAM

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is partly

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2012-2013 C.O.No.42/Ctk/2018

68,27,315.48 From the above recasted balance sheet, It is seen that the liabilities side of the balance sheet is less by Rs.1,83,89,574.48 P a g e 4 | 18 ITA No 481/CT K/ 2017 C.O. No. 42/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year :20 12- 201 3 than the assets side which represents the undisclosed investments

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

section 68 and, therefore, deleted the addition, which is not in accordance with the provisions of law and also new evidences were filed. As regards to deletion of Rs.1,00,000/- being the difference of balance of sundry creditors, ld D.R. submitted that in the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee had transactions with M/s. Vaishnavi Road

CHANDAN KUMAR SAHOO,CUTTACK vs. ITO, PARADEEP

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

section 68 of the Act. 6. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. Before me, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that it will be observed from pages 5 and 6 of the paper book, wherein, the ledger account of proprietary business of the assessee Sidhivinayak Tyres and Tarini Engineering is placed

BAITARANI GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

201 0 11.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that it is a contingent liability. 12. We find that the assessee argued before the CIT(A) that the deduction claimed of Rs.1,68,13,000/- which includes Rs.16,50,000/- was in accordance with the provisions of section

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

section 68 of the Act of 1961 even though the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proof in explaining the amount shown in the books as market outstanding”. 13. Thus, we find that the order of the Assessing Officer is in conformity with the order of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court quoted above. Hence, we hold

KISHAN MOTORS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

201 5 24. In this appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s.271D of the Act of Rs.6,18,840/-. 25. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has obtained cash of Rs.3,18,840/- from Samsul Rahaman

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

68, 459, 511 & 512/CTK/2003 [(2006) 101 TTJ CTK 948] for the assessment year 1994-95 to 98-99 & 2000-01, order dated 30.11.2005, wherein the Tribunal has held as under :- “57. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and relying on the case decisions cited above we are of the considered opinion that the remaining amount of Rs.38

LADI SRINIVAS RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ITO, RAYAGADA WARD, RAYAGADA, RAYAGADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2009-2010

section 68 cannot be sustained. 9. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. 8 IT A No. 394 /CT K/20 14 Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

201 (Rajastan) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) (2003) 26 ITR 0487 CIT vs Saini Medical Store (2005) 275 ITR 79 b. No penalty u/s 2710/E should be impossible on the assessee for any failure referred in provision which include section 2710, if it is proved that there is a reasonable cause for failure of Reasonable causes was sufficiently

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

201 (Rajastan) CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Bajoria (HUF) (2003) 26 ITR 0487 CIT vs Saini Medical Store (2005) 275 ITR 79 b. No penalty u/s 2710/E should be impossible on the assessee for any failure referred in provision which include section 2710, if it is proved that there is a reasonable cause for failure of Reasonable causes was sufficiently

MAKEWAY CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-2011

section 68 of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee received share application money of Rs.44,00,000/- in cash from the following persons: “Maeway Consultancy Private Limited Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201

R.N. SAHOO & OTHERS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

section 68 have been discharged by the assessee by furnishing the relevant evidences. The evidences which were furnished by the assessee were confirmation letters of the partners, copies of I.T.Returns, PAN Nos, and income declared. By furnishing the above, the preliminary onus was discharged by the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that all the partners have

JAGANNATH POLYMERS LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

68,277/- within the prescribed limit given under the respective Act. Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3 Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount as per provisions of section

S K MINERAL HANDLING PVT LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

Section 14(A) is not applicable to the facts of the appellant. The disallowance is neither based on any facts nor permitted in the eye of law and hence needs to be deleted in full. 2) For that the CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the donation paid for Rs.3,68,557/-was inadmissible on the facts

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

68,69,70,71 & ITA n26/WK/2011 dated 22.03.201 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the orders of ld CIT(A)2, Bhubaneswar for AY 2001-02 to AY 2007-08 allowing appeals of the appellant. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-office wrote a letter to the AO on 20.05.2013 to verify any component of capitation fees as per Section

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

68,69,70,71 & ITA n26/WK/2011 dated 22.03.201 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the orders of ld CIT(A)2, Bhubaneswar for AY 2001-02 to AY 2007-08 allowing appeals of the appellant. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-office wrote a letter to the AO on 20.05.2013 to verify any component of capitation fees as per Section

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. S.M.CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

68,69,70,71 & ITA n26/WK/2011 dated 22.03.201 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the orders of ld CIT(A)2, Bhubaneswar for AY 2001-02 to AY 2007-08 allowing appeals of the appellant. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-office wrote a letter to the AO on 20.05.2013 to verify any component of capitation fees as per Section