G R C GARMENTS PARTNERSHIP FIRM ,NANDI SAHI, BUXI BAZAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), CUTTACK , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHELTER CHHAK

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 383/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Grc Garments Partnership Firm,….…….,…Appellant Cuttack Sadar, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-753001, Odisha [Pan:Aaefg7391N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Ward-1(1), Cuttack, Tulasipur, Cuttack-753008, Odisha Appearances By: Shri Diganta Das, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

86,250/- was added back by the ld. Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee as per the provision of section 68

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

DHANALAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.153/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Vs. Ito, Angul Ward, Angul Laxmi Bazar, Angul-759122 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfd 8791 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, Advs. िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

section 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were credit-worthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so- called alleged creditors. In those

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

Section 68, being just 86 proper be upheld 8& the departmental ground on this account be dismissed. 3. For that

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

Section 68 of the Act are as under :- Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

86,600/- with an additional tax demand of Rs.1,60,51,630/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee challenged the additions made by the AO by filing an appeal with the first Appellate Authority i.e CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar. In process, the Ld CIT(A) had observed the matter and sum-up the same with a minor

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

68, 69, etc. are only rules of evidence incorporating the principles of common law jurisprudence. There is further nothing adduced at any stage to show that the deposits, value of which remains unspecified, formed part of the disclosed assets or income for an earlier year, so that the disclosed capital becomes the explanation for the source of the deposits during

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

86 containing Financial Statement and Page No. 1 &1A, containing Annual Return) ii. The transaction between the holding company and the subsidiary company is running like a current account and at the end of the year whatever balance is left was either transferred to share capital or squared up in the account of RKD Construction Pvt. Limited (RKDCPL), the holding

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

86 containing Financial Statement and Page No. 1 &1A, containing Annual Return) ii. The transaction between the holding company and the subsidiary company is running like a current account and at the end of the year whatever balance is left was either transferred to share capital or squared up in the account of RKD Construction Pvt. Limited (RKDCPL), the holding

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

MAKEWAY CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-2011

section 68 of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee received share application money of Rs.44,00,000/- in cash from the following persons: “Maeway Consultancy Private Limited Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1 Details of Share Capital Introduced during Financial Year 2009-10 AMOUNT NAME

CHANDAN KUMAR SAHOO,CUTTACK vs. ITO, PARADEEP

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010

section 68 of the Act. 6. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. Before me, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that it will be observed from pages 5 and 6 of the paper book, wherein, the ledger account of proprietary business of the assessee Sidhivinayak Tyres and Tarini Engineering is placed

M/S. UTKAL PLASTER PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2008-09

section 194C. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.1,67,252/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Crescement Export Syndicate & Others (2013) 33 Taxman.com 250 and the Hon’ble Gujarat High

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

68,503/- by invoking the provisions ITA Nos.339&340/CTK/16 &376/CTK/14 & CO.01/CTK/15&25/CTK/16 of Section 14A r.w.Rule 8D, observing that the disallowance made suo- moto by the assessee is very less compared to the administrative and employee cost devoted to earn the exempt income. 14. On appeal, the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to Rs.4,70,61,000/- considering

TEKCHAND HARILAL,BALASORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

68,500/- during demonetisation period by applying section 69A of the Act. Besides, the AO also disallowed Rs.19,360/- i.e. 10% of carriage outward expenses on adhoc estimate basis Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) but without success. 3. At the time of hearing

BAITARANI GRAMYA BANK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, BALASORE

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

68,13,000/- made by the assessee exceeds the qualifying amount mentioned in the said section. We, therefore, delete the disallowance of Rs.16,50,000/- and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 14. In Ground No.3 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,377 2,39,41,39,182 Finance and Misc Expenditure 1,15,86,87,910 90,85,05,584 1,15,06,34,621 (b) 3,27,65,87,554 3,03,80,73,961 3,54,47,73,803 Total Revenue Expenditure(a+b) Capital Expenditure Application as per Schedule -3, Fixed

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,377 2,39,41,39,182 Finance and Misc Expenditure 1,15,86,87,910 90,85,05,584 1,15,06,34,621 (b) 3,27,65,87,554 3,03,80,73,961 3,54,47,73,803 Total Revenue Expenditure(a+b) Capital Expenditure Application as per Schedule -3, Fixed

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

68,377 2,39,41,39,182 Finance and Misc Expenditure 1,15,86,87,910 90,85,05,584 1,15,06,34,621 (b) 3,27,65,87,554 3,03,80,73,961 3,54,47,73,803 Total Revenue Expenditure(a+b) Capital Expenditure Application as per Schedule -3, Fixed