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

68 of the Act cannot be invoked on various deposits/credit found recorded in the bank account of the assessee in absence of books of the assessee maintained for that previous year. 15. In view of foregoing discussion, I am satisfied that the assessee submitted confirmation from the purchaser of paddy before the authorities below and this was the best possible

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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