SMT. PURNIMA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Purnima Das, C/O. Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Biswajit Das, At-9, Budha Nagar, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aazpd0112 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit Passed U./S.263 Of The Act, Dated 12.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Reev5/2021-22/10540634159(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee Assisted By Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr & Ms. Simran Samal, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue Assisted By Shri Dharmashoka Panda, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is A Professor Of Mathematics At P.N.College, Khurda. The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year On 5.8.2017

unexplained investment in Bank Account U/s.69 of the LT. Act, 1961. In response to this, the Assessee respectfully submits that, during the year under consideration, she has sold the agricultural land owned by her to M/s.Shree Cement Limited for a consideration of Rs.4,60,32,000.00 on 30.O8. 2016. The said sale considerations were deposited in the Axis Bank

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. POSCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.09/Ctk/2020 (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

unexplained. There is no material on record to suggest that the interest earned from the fixed deposits and dividend earned from mutual funds was inseparably connected with the business activity of the. assessee or it was commercially utilized prior to the commencement of the business. The assessee company has not made out the case that the deposits were kept with

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 when, (i) S.T.T. was duly paid on Transfer of shares; and (ii) Holding of such shares was for more than one year. The AO found that the above sale proceeds were made only to avoid tax which is totally unjustified and unlawful. The AO's action was made on surmises and suspicion and the assessment

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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

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