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

24,86,600/- with an additional tax demand of Rs.1,60,51,630/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee challenged the additions made by the AO by filing an appeal with the first Appellate Authority i.e CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar. In process, the Ld CIT(A) had observed the matter and sum-up the same with

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

section 68 could be made only if the amount was credited in the accounts of the assessee in the relevant financial year. In Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Del-Trib): 24

SUBHALAXMI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,NAYAGARH vs. JCIT, RAMGE-2, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and that of

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

24 (x) read with Section 36 (1) (va) of the Act creates the impression that the employees' contribution would continue to be treated differently under a different head of deduction, as the head of deduction is separate under Section 43 B and Section 36 of the Act but on a broader reading of the amendments made

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. 21. The plea of the Appellant that on filing of the bank statement and PAN details, the burden stood discharged or that it shifted on to the revenue is tenuous and is not correct. The credit worthiness of the transaction cannot be said to be proved merely on the strength of the bank statement

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

68 of the Act including a sum of ₹ 24 Lakh from Ashadeep Homes Pvt Ltd which was an inactive company and had been struck off and any kind of investment made in the assessee’s business by a struck off company has been treated as the income of the assessee under section

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

68 of the Act without appreciating the nature of the deposits. He further submitted that the assessee bank was not authorized to allow the exchange facility against the specified bank notes during the period from 15.11.2016 to 29.11.2016 and, therefore, the entire deposits received during this period in demonetized currency is unexplained money and deserves to be added u/s.69A

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

68 of the Act without appreciating the nature of the deposits. He further submitted that the assessee bank was not authorized to allow the exchange facility against the specified bank notes during the period from 15.11.2016 to 29.11.2016 and, therefore, the entire deposits received during this period in demonetized currency is unexplained money and deserves to be added u/s.69A

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

68 of the Act without appreciating the nature of the deposits. He further submitted that the assessee bank was not authorized to allow the exchange facility against the specified bank notes during the period from 15.11.2016 to 29.11.2016 and, therefore, the entire deposits received during this period in demonetized currency is unexplained money and deserves to be added u/s.69A

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

68 of the Act without appreciating the nature of the deposits. He further submitted that the assessee bank was not authorized to allow the exchange facility against the specified bank notes during the period from 15.11.2016 to 29.11.2016 and, therefore, the entire deposits received during this period in demonetized currency is unexplained money and deserves to be added u/s.69A

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

68 of the Act without appreciating the nature of the deposits. He further submitted that the assessee bank was not authorized to allow the exchange facility against the specified bank notes during the period from 15.11.2016 to 29.11.2016 and, therefore, the entire deposits received during this period in demonetized currency is unexplained money and deserves to be added u/s.69A

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 68 only based on the assessee's passbook, which was not a book of account, would not be sustainable. This same view has also been held in the case of (a) Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel v. ITO [2018] 100 taxmann.com 325 (Ahmedabad Trib.) and (b) Kuldeep Jiwan Mahant v ITO [2023] 157 taxmann.com 532 (Raipur Trib

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

24,640/- sources being unexplained cash credit under section 68 (+)Income from other Rs.5,08,000/- sources being unexplained

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

PRASANTA KUMAR MOHAPATRA,KEONJHAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.113/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Mining Road, New Market, Keonjhar, Odisha Pan No. :Aavpm 9636 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Dated 25.08.2021, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1035100447(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Committed Serious Error In Modify The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer Which Is Unjust, Illegal, Arbitrary, Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions F The Act, Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Been Made In Gross Violation To The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Annulled. 2. That, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Sambalpur Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Jurisdiction Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order Thereof Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled. 3. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Scope Of Power Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order There Off Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled.

Section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case and therefore, the action of ld. PCIT in modifying the assessment order by making the addition of Rs.3,44,64,222 u/s.68 deserves to be struck down. In the alternate he prayed that in the interest of justice instead of modifying the assessment order and directing

MR. BICHITRANANDA ROUT,SHANKARPUR, CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from as source, which has already been taxed." The assessee

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

BRIG. NARAYAN NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT-5(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

24)(x) and thereafter if it is paid in due date to the provident fund then he is entitled to deduct tax as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Regarding employees contribution the assessee has not furnished any details or evidence either before the AO or before the CIT(A). In respect of ESI payment, the assessee

BRIG.NARAYAN NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

24)(x) and thereafter if it is paid in due date to the provident fund then he is entitled to deduct tax as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Regarding employees contribution the assessee has not furnished any details or evidence either before the AO or before the CIT(A). In respect of ESI payment, the assessee

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBNAESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.343/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Industrial Development Vs Dcit, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar Corporation Of Orissa Limited (Idcol), Idcol House, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaaci 4821 L (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.08.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, On The Following Grounds :- 1. The Order Of Assessment As Well As Appeal Is Against Law, Weight Of Evidences & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Most Arbitrarily Disallowed Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, U/S 14A Against The Exempted Income Of Rs.5,50,000/-, Being Dividend Received From Associate Companies In Routine Manner, Without Properly Recording The Dissatisfaction Of The Assessing Officer 3. The Interest On Income Tax Refund Of Rs.8,04,924/-, Which Is Adjusted Against Demand, Was Not Properly Intimated For Which The Same Is Not Recognized As Income. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer Added Rs.6,66,721/-, As Interest On Fixed Deposit Based On The Comment Of The Auditor, Which Is Recognized In Subsequent Assessment Year. 5. The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Adding, Amount Disallowed U/S 14A, Of Rs. 1,63,05,059/-, Rs.8,04,924/-, On Account Of Income

24,611/-, the Assessing Officer has computed disallowance of Rs.1,29,66,368/- which is in excess of exempt income earned for the year. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict