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

Section 68 of the Act as decided by the many judicial higher forums. The AO also observed that the lenders have deposited cash in his bank account immediately before giving loans which also creates a doubt to the genuineness of the loans. He also submitted that in case of individuals lenders there is no genuine business activity which shows

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

33 Assessment Year : 2017-18 11. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anantpur Kalpana in ITA No.541/Bang/2021 held that accepting SBNs subsequent to 08.11.2016 cannot be sole reason for making addition under section 69A of the Act. The relevant arguments raised before the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal and the findings read as follows

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

33, where it was clearly held that disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A shall not exceed exempt income earned for the year . A similar view has been taken by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Voltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2017) 163 ITD 469. In this case, although the dividend income earned for the year

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

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68 of the Act considering the same as income of the assessee. However, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of balance amount of Rs.6,18,840/-. 27. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has accepted the cash loan of Rs.3,18,840/- from

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 cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be asked to prove the 3 ingredients of cash credits in respect of sundry creditors. The sundry credits have arisen out of transactions with the assessee of supply of goods or services and unless the AO proves that the goods

M/S. SEAMARK BIO ORGANIC PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singh

68,509 3. Gift Articles 9,20,22,518 4. Cost of samples 3,60,85,320 Total: 22,99,72,607 The nature of aforesaid expenses has already been explained above. Now whether the nature of such expenditure incurred by the assessee is to be disallowed in view of the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012. For the sake of ready

ACIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 37(1) of the Act will not be applicable. We therefore uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss ground no.2 raised by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13. P a g e 26 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela 33

INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 37(1) of the Act will not be applicable. We therefore uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss ground no.2 raised by the revenue for the assessment year 2012-13. P a g e 26 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela 33

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

Sections 68, 69, etc. are only rules of evidence incorporating the principles of common law jurisprudence. There is further nothing adduced at any stage to show that the deposits, value of which remains unspecified, formed part of the disclosed assets or income for an earlier year, so that the disclosed capital becomes the explanation for the source

M/S. UTKAL PLASTER PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2008-09

section 194C. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.1,67,252/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Crescement Export Syndicate & Others (2013) 33 Taxman.com 250 and the Hon’ble Gujarat High

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

Section 68, being just 86 proper be upheld 8& the departmental ground on this account be dismissed. 3. For that even if assuming but not admitting that as held by the CIT (A) the disclosed receipt of Rs. 29,61,593/- disclosed under the head business income voluntarily are to be treated as rental income under the head "Income

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

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 owned

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 1 Details of Share Capital Introduced during Financial Year 2009-10 AMOUNT NAME

NABAKISHORE DASH,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, PARADEEP

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

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2008-09

section 68 of the Act as not explained 19. Similarly, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee received loan of Rs.2,59,500/- from Smt. Ashalata Acharya, mother of the assessee, who is a retired teacher. She admitted on oath of having advancing Rs.2,59,500/- in cash from her bank account. On a perusal of bank Asse ssment

TEKCHAND HARILAL,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

68,500/- during demonetisation period by applying section 69A of the Act. Besides, the AO also disallowed Rs.19,360/- i.e. 10% of carriage outward expenses on adhoc estimate basis Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) but without success. 3. At the time of hearing

BAITARANI GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

68,13,000/- made by the assessee exceeds the qualifying amount mentioned in the said section. We, therefore, delete the disallowance of Rs.16,50,000/- and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 14. In Ground No.3 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,503/- by invoking the provisions ITA Nos.339&340/CTK/16 &376/CTK/14 & CO.01/CTK/15&25/CTK/16 of Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D, observing that the disallowance made suo- moto by the assessee is very less compared to the administrative and employee cost devoted to earn the exempt income. 14. On appeal, the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to Rs.4,70,61,000/- considering

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

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

68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident is an amount which is not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee may not have made an application under section 18(3B) [now section 195(2)]. The application