SMT. SANJUKTA PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

credited in the same account on the same date. Ld DR further explained that when the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit, the assessee stated that she and her husband Dr Uma Shankar Dalal jointly sold a piece of land measuring Ac 0.300 (L\Plot No.49 & 50 measuring Ac.0.150 dcm each) at Mouza patrapada, Bhubaneswar stood

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

PAHANAWA ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.174/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Naveen Kumar Gupta Vs Acit, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela Sector-C, Main Road, Bandamunda, Rourkela, Odisha-770032 Pan No. :Adspg 0050 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dated 16.02.2024 Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061029134(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018 On The Strength Of Following Grounds Of Appeal :- A. For That The Order Passed By The Ld. Nfac Is Ex-Facie Illegal, Excessive, Bad In Law & As Such Liable To Be Quashed In Limine. B. For That The Ld. Nfac Totally Misinterpreted The Fact & Has Upheld The Addition Of Rs.1,60,00,000/-. C. For That The Ld. Nfac Instead Of Completely Setting Aside The Addition Of Rs.2,80,50,000/- Has Instead Directed The Assessing Officer To Delete The Amount After Verification.

price paid by the partnership firm M/s. Aaravindam Lifespace LLP. Therefore, no addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee on this transaction. He, thus, prayed for the deletion of addition so made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 4 5. In reply, ld. CIT-DR fairly admitted that the transaction is of the value

NABIN KUMAR GUPTA,BANDAMUNDA vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE ROURKELA, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.174/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Naveen Kumar Gupta Vs Acit, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela Sector-C, Main Road, Bandamunda, Rourkela, Odisha-770032 Pan No. :Adspg 0050 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dated 16.02.2024 Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061029134(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018 On The Strength Of Following Grounds Of Appeal :- A. For That The Order Passed By The Ld. Nfac Is Ex-Facie Illegal, Excessive, Bad In Law & As Such Liable To Be Quashed In Limine. B. For That The Ld. Nfac Totally Misinterpreted The Fact & Has Upheld The Addition Of Rs.1,60,00,000/-. C. For That The Ld. Nfac Instead Of Completely Setting Aside The Addition Of Rs.2,80,50,000/- Has Instead Directed The Assessing Officer To Delete The Amount After Verification.

price paid by the partnership firm M/s. Aaravindam Lifespace LLP. Therefore, no addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee on this transaction. He, thus, prayed for the deletion of addition so made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 4 5. In reply, ld. CIT-DR fairly admitted that the transaction is of the value

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had challenged the said assessment order and the same as on date is pending before the CIT(A). Out of the balance 8,67,500 shares the assessee had transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through