M/S. NIYATI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-2007

42 taxmann.com 339(Delhi). Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit [Share money] - Assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 - Whether

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

42 of Finance Act 2015 relating to this has clarified the position that this amendment is applicable prospectively w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The relevant clause is reproduced as under: “Rationalisation of provisions relating to deduction of tax on interest (other than interest on securities) Section 194A(1) read with section 194A(3)(i) of the Act provide for deduction

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

42 of Finance Act 2015 relating to this has clarified the position that this amendment is applicable prospectively w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The relevant clause is reproduced as under: “Rationalisation of provisions relating to deduction of tax on interest (other than interest on securities) Section 194A(1) read with section 194A(3)(i) of the Act provide for deduction

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

42 of Finance Act 2015 relating to this has clarified the position that this amendment is applicable prospectively w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The relevant clause is reproduced as under: “Rationalisation of provisions relating to deduction of tax on interest (other than interest on securities) Section 194A(1) read with section 194A(3)(i) of the Act provide for deduction

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

42 of Finance Act 2015 relating to this has clarified the position that this amendment is applicable prospectively w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The relevant clause is reproduced as under: “Rationalisation of provisions relating to deduction of tax on interest (other than interest on securities) Section 194A(1) read with section 194A(3)(i) of the Act provide for deduction

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

42 of Finance Act 2015 relating to this has clarified the position that this amendment is applicable prospectively w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The relevant clause is reproduced as under: “Rationalisation of provisions relating to deduction of tax on interest (other than interest on securities) Section 194A(1) read with section 194A(3)(i) of the Act provide for deduction

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-

42 Dated 30-11-2017 3.1.23. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph 3 of Instruction No. 20/2015 dated 29.12.2015, which contain the procedure for conducting the 'limited scrutiny' are reproduced hereunder: 7 a. In 'limited scrutiny cases, the reasons/issues shall be forthwith communicated to the assessee concerned. b. The Questionnaire under section

SYLVESA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO WARD -1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Section 139(1) for AY 2014-15 could not be filed\ndue to management disturbances. Notice U/s 148 dated\n28.07.2022 was issued to the assessee alleging that the return of\nincome for the impugned AY has not been filed by the assessee\nthough there are credits of Rs. Rs. 11,73,40,969/-in the bank\naccounts

KALINGA INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY (KIIT),BHUBANESWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit Technology (Kiit), Hyderabad Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwal S.K.Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 7 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

42,77,146/- (Rs. 1,52,26,630 - (-) Rs. 4,90,50,516) was required to be added to the income as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Section 115BBE(1) of the IT Act provides that where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68

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

42 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela ITA Nos.393 & 394/CTK/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 – Assesse’s appeal. 60. Ground No.1 of appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 are general in nature. 61. Ground No.2 for A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-13 is common i.e. disallowance under section

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

42 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela ITA Nos.393 & 394/CTK/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 – Assesse’s appeal. 60. Ground No.1 of appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 are general in nature. 61. Ground No.2 for A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-13 is common i.e. disallowance under section

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

42,479) is confirmed. Ground No.1 of appeal is partly allowed. 9. Apropos Ground No.2 of appeal, ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors namely; Narayan Sahoo of Rs.5,00,000/- and Pervez Jamal of Rs.3,00,000/- and all the documents were filed in the paper book at pages

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

section 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

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India