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-

68, he can't be permitted to legalize it by allowing him to take post facto permission from the competent authority. 3.1.38. The appellant would cite some case decisions in support of her prayer. 3.1.39. In the case of Vudatha Vani Rao v. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 1394 (Visakhapatnam Trib.), 'limited scrutiny' was initiated to examine the sources

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word "may" and not "shall". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

68 or not.... Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., wherein, it was stated that bank statement is not sufficient enough to discharge the burden. Regarding the failure to accord

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

89,34,856/-. It is strange that while framing the assessment order, the AO has applied provisions of section 44AD (presumptive rate of income @ 8% of turnover) even on partial sale consideration of Rs.56,80,821/- paid for acquisition of immovable property, which by any stretch could not have been termed as "turnover". (d) Since assessee's books

ITO (TDS), ROURKELA vs. PENGUIN TRADING & AGENCIES PVT. LTD., KEONJHAR

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

section 206C(1) on the P a g e 1 | 5 Ass essment Year : 2013- 14 sale of iron ore from July, 2012 to November, 2012. However, during the above sale of iron ore was effected of Rs.64,68,89

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

89,758 appearing in its books, P a g e 4 | 11 ITA No. 154/CT K/ 2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4 when compared with its turnover of Rs.1,50,79,561-, appeared very high. The Assessing Officer called for details of sundry creditors with account confirmation of parties having balance above Rs.10,000 by notice dated 22/05/2015

MAA JAGAT JANANI SEVA TRUST,NAMBIRA vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-2015 2015 Maa Maa Jagat Jagat Janani Janani Seva Seva Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Trust, At- -Nambira, Po: Income Income Tax, Tax, Exemption Exemption Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Circle, Bhubaneswar Circle, Bhubaneswar Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aadtm 1575 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 7.6.2023 In Appeal No.Nfac/2013 Nfac/2013-14/10180318 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 1. Out of fund transfer of Rs.5,18,62,600/-, major payments were made to the following parties: Sl.No. Name of the party Amount in Rs. 1. Raghunath Mohapatra 50,00,000 2. Ashok Kumar Mahakud 80,00,000 3. Ranjit Kumar Barik 60,00,000 4. Bhaktabandhu Mohanta

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

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

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 and Management of both the companies are under the control of R. K. Das. Under this situation cash transaction which is genuine shall not covered u/s 271D/E, since the fund is being changed from

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

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 and Management of both the companies are under the control of R. K. Das. Under this situation cash transaction which is genuine shall not covered u/s 271D/E, since the fund is being changed from

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 even if assuming but not admitting that as held by the CIT (A) the disclosed receipt of Rs. 29,61,593/- disclosed under the head business income voluntarily are to be treated as rental income under the head "Income

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

89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana

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

89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana

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

89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana

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

89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana

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

89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana

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

89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana

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

89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana