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

9 however, on the other hand, the Pr.CIT has directed the AO to accept the return income of the assessee as is evident from the observations of the Pr.CIT reproduced hereinabove. We also observe from the documents available before us that the assessee did not provide the complete details as per the requirements of notice issued u/s.142

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

9. Ld A.R. further submitted that in this case section 68 of the Act is not attracted at all. He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Baladin Ram, vs CIT, 71 ITR 427 (SC) ii) Anandram Raitani vs CIT, 223 ITR 544 (Gau) iii) Smt. Madhu Raitani vs ACIT, 45 SOT 231 (Gau)™ iv) Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitkar

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

section 40A(1O) of the Act. 5. Ld D.R. though relied on the orders of lower authorities but Id not cite any contrary decisions before us. 20. After considering the rival submissions and perusing materials available on record, we find that the issue at hand is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court

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

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 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 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, 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

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

68,12,680/- in toto. It was the submission that in the assessment order itself in para 3.1.2, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the purchases were made from the cultivators. Ld AR has placed before us the copies of purchase vouchers as also weigh bills in respect of goods which have crossed the Jagatpur Check Post and contain

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 :-

40A(7) of the Act, therefore, the show cause notice was issued to the assessee for furnishing explanation as to why the claimed expenditure is not in accordance with the provisions of Act and, therefore, is not to be disallowed. Therefore, the AO added to the total income to the assessee to the tune of Rs.6,77,823/-. 7. Further

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 :-

40A(7) of the Act, therefore, the show cause notice was issued to the assessee for furnishing explanation as to why the claimed expenditure is not in accordance with the provisions of Act and, therefore, is not to be disallowed. Therefore, the AO added to the total income to the assessee to the tune of Rs.6,77,823/-. 7. Further

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

68,680/- for non-deduction of TDS on technical and professional charges. Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) should have disallowed 30% of expenses as per the amended provisions in Section 40(a)(ia) of 3 the Act and the CIT(A) observed that this provision is w.e.f.01.04.2015, therefore, sustained the addition. Hence, the ld. AR prayed

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

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

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

9 | 15 Assessment Year : 2014-15 (b) But it was noticed that in its P&L account, the assessee had partially disclosed the "gross receipts from contract works" at Rs.2,40,55,730/-as against actual receipts of Rs.2,89,34,856/-. Thus, the assessee had suppressed contract receipts to the tune of Rs.48,79,126/- (Rs.2

MGM MINERALS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,495- less increase in closing stock value due to incorrect valuation of closing stock at Rs. 19,38,227/-). In the result grounds no.1 raised by the revenue is partly allowed. 10. Ground No.2 has been raised by the revenue towards deleting the addition for unexplained sundry debtors at Rs. 6,28,01,826/-. We find that

MGM MINERALS LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,495- less increase in closing stock value due to incorrect valuation of closing stock at Rs. 19,38,227/-). In the result grounds no.1 raised by the revenue is partly allowed. 10. Ground No.2 has been raised by the revenue towards deleting the addition for unexplained sundry debtors at Rs. 6,28,01,826/-. We find that

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MGM MINERALS LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,495- less increase in closing stock value due to incorrect valuation of closing stock at Rs. 19,38,227/-). In the result grounds no.1 raised by the revenue is partly allowed. 10. Ground No.2 has been raised by the revenue towards deleting the addition for unexplained sundry debtors at Rs. 6,28,01,826/-. We find that