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

44 taxmann.com 364 (Delhi). Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit - Assessment year 2000-01 -Sole

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

section 68 of the Act in respect of the unsecured loans taken by the assessee, it was submitted that these loans were the same amounts which have been treated by the Pr. CIT as being liable for deemed dividend. It was the submission that these loans had been specifically examined by the Assessing Officer in the course

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-

section 68 only based on the assessee's passbook, which was not a book of account, would not be sustainable. This same view has also been held in the case of (a) Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel v. ITO [2018] 100 taxmann.com 325 (Ahmedabad Trib.) and (b) Kuldeep Jiwan Mahant v ITO [2023] 157 taxmann.com 532 (Raipur Trib

PRASANTA KUMAR MOHAPATRA,KEONJHAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.113/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Mining Road, New Market, Keonjhar, Odisha Pan No. :Aavpm 9636 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Dated 25.08.2021, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1035100447(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Committed Serious Error In Modify The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer Which Is Unjust, Illegal, Arbitrary, Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions F The Act, Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Been Made In Gross Violation To The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Annulled. 2. That, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Sambalpur Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Jurisdiction Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order Thereof Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled. 3. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Scope Of Power Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order There Off Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled.

Section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case and therefore, the action of ld. PCIT in modifying the assessment order by making the addition of Rs.3,44

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. KAUSHAL ERR METAL PVT. LTD, SUNDERGARH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Section 68 of the Act cannot be applied to the opening balance. 7 12. We are of the opinion that the CIT(A) order has to be modified to the extent of share premium of Rs.2,06,66,000 received during the year where the assessee could not prove with reasons for charging the premium except relying

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

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

44,68,814/- was received as interest which was credited to the Grantee. The said amount is not to be taken as income of the assessee. The assessee relies on the decisions of 221 ITR 317 in the case of Gujarat Municipal Finance Board vs DCIT. Under the aforesaid written submission your honour is requested to verify the receipt

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

44,610/-. Assessee is a hundred crore turnover company. The Learned Assessing Officer has not examined any expenditure claimed in Profit & Loss account so as to relate to exempt income, nor gave a finding that assessee claim is not correct for any reason. Rule 8D cannot be invoked directly without satisfying about the claims or otherwise. Consequently, the disallowance

GANESH MILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KARANJIA,MAYURBHANJ,ODISHA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BALESWAR CIRCLE,BALESWAR

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

44 to 47 as filed before the AO vide letter dated 25.05.2022. From the perusal of this list, it appears that none of the parties had opening balance and the outstanding balances appearing against in their names are with regard to the purchases made from them during the year itself. It is also seen that neither during the course

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

68,27,315.48 From the above recasted balance sheet, It is seen that the liabilities side of the balance sheet is less by Rs.1,83,89,574.48 P a g e 4 | 18 ITA No 481/CT K/ 2017 C.O. No. 42/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year :20 12- 201 3 than the assets side which represents the undisclosed investments

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHA,BARIPADA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

44 parties Rs.1,02,81,647.68 Total; Rs.1,88,71,405.83 6. He observed that the turnover of MP Rice Mill, one of the units of the assessee, was Rs.1,50,79,561 during the relevant year. But, sundry creditors of Rs.85,89,758 appearing in its books, P a g e 4 | 11 ITA No. 154/CT K/ 2018 Asse

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. Ground No.3 of appeal for the assessment year

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. Ground No.3 of appeal for the assessment year

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

44,595.70 4. Laxmipriya Subudhi 8,75,000.00 5. Dinabadnhu Behura 8,76,000.00 6. Babaji Samal 4,31,000.00 Total : Rs.86,87,746 4. As regards remaining amount of sundry creditors of Rs.22,07,294/- (Rs.12,08,95,040/- - Rs.86,87,746/-), the assessee failed to produce the confirmations. Therefore, the AO treated the said amount of Rs.22

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

44 of the paper book which is a copy of the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2014. It was submitted that in the balance sheet, the sundry creditors (land development expenses) has been shown at Rs.74,02,500/-. Further, the ld. AR drew our attention to page 63, which is a copy of the balance sheet for the year

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

44,36,000/- and R. K. Das has invested Rs. 67,00,000/- Both the R. K. Das, who is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of appellant company and Managing Director of RKDCPL have 89,31% of total share. In Both the company the Managing Director is common. The cheque signing lies with MD of both companies. The entire finance

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

44,36,000/- and R. K. Das has invested Rs. 67,00,000/- Both the R. K. Das, who is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of appellant company and Managing Director of RKDCPL have 89,31% of total share. In Both the company the Managing Director is common. The cheque signing lies with MD of both companies. The entire finance

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. 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