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

3) of the Act. 14. In the grounds of appeal, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,53,96,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head “unexplained money” u/s.69A of the Act. 15. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under appeal, the assessee bank

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

3) of the Act. 14. In the grounds of appeal, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,53,96,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head “unexplained money” u/s.69A of the Act. 15. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under appeal, the assessee bank

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

3) of the Act. 14. In the grounds of appeal, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,53,96,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head “unexplained money” u/s.69A of the Act. 15. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under appeal, the assessee bank

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

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

40A(3) wherever the payment were in excess of Rs. 20,000/. Therefore sundry creditors cannot be said to be bogus and no addition can be made as bogus creditors. It is further submitted that even if it is presumed that there were unconfirmed creditors, then whether the provision of section 68

SRI SUKHAMAYA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2013-14 Sri Sukhmaya Das, Sri Sukhmaya Das, At-N/3/69, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), 3(1), Irc Irc Village, Village, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aeppd 2993 A Aeppd 2993 A (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /06/20 /2021 O R D E R

3 | 10 Assessment Year : 2013-14 6. I find that although the ld CIT(A) in the impugned order has not discussed anything regarding the issue and dismissed the appeal exparte, but the issue can be decided after hearing both the sides and materials available on record in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

CHOUDHURY DALL MILL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDNI CHOWK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1),CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18

section 40A(3) of the Act to bring to tax the payments made to the cultivators in excess of Rs.20,000/-. It was the submission that consequently, in para 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, the Assessing Officer disallowed the purchases made from the cultivators to an extent of Rs.4,68

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

SK. GOLAM MUSTAFA,JAJPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sk.Golam Mustafa Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack New Siaria, Trijanga, Rehabilitation Colony, Danagadi, Jajpur-755026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akgpm 6161 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 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), Cuttack, Dated 27.02.2018 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0005/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Cuttack Confirming The Addition Of Rs 2,35,127/- Made By The Acit,Circle-L(L) Cuttack Under Section 40A(3) Of It Act 1961 In Computing The Business Income Of The Assessee Is Arbitrary To Law & The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Incometax (Appeats),Cuttack Is Not Justified In Disallowing The Professional Fees Paid Amounting To Rs 6,68,680/- On The Ground That No Tds Has Been Deducted From Such Payments. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Contract Work Under The Name & Style Of Royal Enterprises

section 40A(3) of IT ACT 1961 in computing the business income of the assessee is arbitrary to law and the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Incometax (APPEATS),Cuttack is not justified in disallowing the professional fees paid amounting to Rs 6,68

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES (P) LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.232&233/Ctk/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar Vs. Rajdhani Systems &Estates (P) Ltd., A/170, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr 8271 L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.253&254/Ctk/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Rajdhani Systems &Estates Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), (P) Ltd., A/170, Sahid Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabcr 8271 L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar All Dated 01.02.2012 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. Since The Issue & Facts Involved In These Appeals Are Interconnected, Therefore, They Are Being Heard & Disposed Off Together As Under.

section 40A(3) of the 13 Rajdhani Systems & Estates (P) Ltd. Act. Thus, this ground of appeal is also allowed for statistical purposes. As the facts in the present appeal are identical, respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and restore this issue back to the file of AO with same direction as given

EMINENCE CORPORATION (P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO,WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.227/Ctk/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-2006) M/S Eminence Corporation Pvt. Ltd Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar C-7, Saheed Nagar Market Building Bhubaneswar-751007 Pan No. :Aafcs 9723 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 15.03.2019, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0228/14-15 For The Assessment Year 2005-2006. 2. This Appeal Had Originally Been Disposed Off By The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 06.08.2020. The Said Order Of The Tribunal Had Been Recalled In The Miscellaneous Application Filed By The Assessee Being M.A.No.33/Ctk/221 Vide Order Dated 19.08.2022 For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating The Ground No.1 Of The Assessee’S Appeal. Now, The Appeal Is Fixed For Hearing Before Us Today For Adjudicating The Ground No.1 Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal, Which Is As Under :-

Section 40A(3) of the Act in respect of alleged cash payments in excess of Rs.20,000/-. It was the submission that the alleged addition was to an extent of Rs.9,68

B.C. BHUYAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2014-15 B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle - Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, 1(1), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcb 3304 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /07/2023

section 40A(3) included the labour payments, which had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer under the heads “bogus labour payment” to an extent of Rs.6,86,19,336/-. It was the submission that this amounts to double addition. It was the further submission that the Assessing Officer himself has accepted in page 18 of his order that

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

3. The assessee has raised 11 grounds in the appeal, out of which ground Nos.6,7,8,9,10 & 11 have not been pressed by ld. AR of the assessee at the time of hearing and made endorsement on the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, ground Nos. 6,7,8,9,10 & 11 are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Brief facts

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRI JAGANNATH PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-2014

40A(3) of the Act Hence, the books of accounts were incorrectly rejected as it was not a, case where it could be held that the books of accounts was incorrect or incomplete or correct profits could not be deduced - Samwon Precision Mould Mgf (India)P.ltd v .Income Tax Officer [2016] 48 ITR (Trib)630(Delhi

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

40A(3)—Smt. Sapna Sanjay Raisoni vs. ITO (2016) 179 TTJ 34 (Pune)(Trib) followed.” In the case of “Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education Vs. ITO, (2019) 176 ITD 47 (Mumbai)” the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT it was held that; There is complete control of the State Government over the affairs of the assessee-Board. The powers

M/S. B.K. JENA & ASSOCIATES,KUJANG vs. PR. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, M/S. B.K.Jena & Associates, Vs. Pr. Cit, Cuttack Pr. Cit, Cuttack Rangiagarh, Rangiagarh, Jhimani, Jhimani, Kujang, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur Jagatsinghpur Pan/Gir No. No.Aagfb 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16/9/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/ /9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

40A(3) & 40(a)(ia) of the IT. Act while completing the assessment. (g) Neither did the AO call for proof of various additions to assets acquired during the year, nor examined whether they were put to use before allowing the claim of depreciation on such assets. (h)The AO had also not examined whether there were any fresh cash

SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,MAYURBHANJ vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 40A(3) of the Act and addition of closing stock Rs.23,04,308/- and assessed total income at Rs.1,51,68

ACIT, BALASORE vs. M/S. SANTOSH KUMAR KHANDELWAL, MAYURBHANJ

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Section 40A(3) of the Act and addition of closing stock Rs.23,04,308/- and assessed total income at Rs.1,51,68