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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains (L TCG) on sales of shares on the specious ground that the assessee was not qranted an opportunity to cross-examine

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains (L TCG) on sales of shares on the specious ground that the assessee was not qranted an opportunity to cross-examine

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains (L TCG) on sales of shares on the specious ground that the assessee was not qranted an opportunity to cross-examine

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains (L TCG) on sales of shares on the specious ground that the assessee was not qranted an opportunity to cross-examine

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains (L TCG) on sales of shares on the specious ground that the assessee was not qranted an opportunity to cross-examine

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains (L TCG) on sales of shares on the specious ground that the assessee was not qranted an opportunity to cross-examine

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains (L TCG) on sales of shares on the specious ground that the assessee was not qranted an opportunity to cross-examine

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SMT. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains (L TCG) on sales of shares on the specious ground that the assessee was not qranted an opportunity to cross-examine

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains (L TCG) on sales of shares on the specious ground that the assessee was not qranted an opportunity to cross-examine

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

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

undisclosed income to tax free income. Ground No.4: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A), Cuttack was not justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding Long Term Capital Gains (L TCG) on sales of shares on the specious ground that the assessee was not qranted an opportunity to cross-examine

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income in the firm as capital contribution in the grab of bogus LTCG also hold no water. 12. Further the issue of genuineness of LTCG has already been decided in favor of assessee with by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT-1 Vs. Smt. Bimala Devi Singhania, passed in ITA Nos.84

MR. BICHITRANANDA ROUT,SHANKARPUR, CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

transferring or receiving SBNs is only after the ‘appointed day’ which is 31.12.2016. In view of the above, there is no violation by the assessee of any law in accepting SBNs for the purpose of cash sales and considering it to be a due discharge of debt. Furthermore, even the CBDT had issued various Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) instructing

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

price and credited to the said fund were first liable to be used in adjusting the losses of the respondent society in the working year; thereafter in the repayment of initial loan from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India and then for redeeming the Government share and only in the event of any balance being left, it was liable

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

price and credited to the said fund were first liable to be used in adjusting the losses of the respondent society in the working year; thereafter in the repayment of initial loan from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India and then for redeeming the Government share and only in the event of any balance being left, it was liable

SHRI NIRMAL CHANDRA OJHA,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.95/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sri Nirmal Chandra Ojha, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Balasore, At: Mobarakpur, Soro, Balasore Dist: Balasore-756045 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Asvpk 7004 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 23.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0327/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Reassessment So Passed By The Learned A.O. Is Premature, Without Jurisdiction & Without The Authority Of Law, As Such, The Same Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 2. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Quashed The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Particularly When, The Same Is Without Jurisdiction, As Such The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 3. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Not Have Ignored The Explanation As Well As The Cash Flow Statement & Capital Account Furnished By The Appellant & Should Not Have Confirmed The Addition Made By The Learned A.O., Treating The Same As Undisclosed Investment.

transfer of landed property. Thus, I have reason to believe that income/gain from such property has escaped assessment u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Issued notice u/s.148 of the I.T.Act calling for the person to file a return of income within 30 days of receipt of the notice.” In view of the above, it is vivid that the AO initiated

M/S. ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

undisclosed income or asset was found during the course of the survey/search action. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Orders passed by the Ld. AO u/s 153C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who being the first Appellate Authority, confirmed the Assessment Orders passed by the Ld. AO. Being aggrieved

SHRI ANTARYAMI KAR,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.94/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sri Antaryami Kar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Balasore, S/O-Bhagirathi Kar, District : Balasore At-Podapatna, Oupada, Dist: Balasore-759049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Asvpk 7004 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 23.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0328/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Reassessment So Passed By The Learned A.O. Is Premature, Without Jurisdiction & Without The Authority Of Law, As Such, The Same Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 2. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Quashed The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Particularly When, The Same Is Without Jurisdiction, As Such The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 3. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Not Have Ignored The Explanation As Well As The Cash Flow Statement & Capital Account Furnished By The Appellant & Should Not Have Confirmed The Addition Made By The Learned A.O., Treating The Same As Undisclosed Investment.

undisclosed investment. 2 4. For that, the learned C.I.T.(A) should have deleted the addition of Rs.6,71,130.00 made by the learned A.O., particularly when, the impugned addition is not sustainable, as such, the same needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5. For that, the learned C.I.T.(A) should not have ignored the judicial pronouncement

M/S- SBEP-GRIL(JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

income accrue to the assessee. Ld.AR submitted that in view of the parameters laid down in the judicial precedents (supra) and on perusal of the relevant clauses of the agreements entered into by the appellant with these employers/contractees and on perusal of the documents furnished at the time of applying for tender, there remains absolutely no doubt that the assessee