M/S. BAJRANGBALI STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ROURKLA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act and had made an addition thereafter. It was the further submission that on similar lines sales to certain concerns were also treated as unexplained cash credits and additions had been made on such sales. It was the further submission that on the basis of information received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MAGNUM ESTATE LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132- Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. A, A, Sector Sector-A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aabcm 8066 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.21/Ctk/2021 (In Ita No.248/Ctk/2017) .248/Ctk/2017) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132- Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), A, A, Sector Sector-A, Zone-A, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcm 8066 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri J.M.Patnaik J.M.Patnaik , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 7.3.2017 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. P A G E 1 | 10 C.O.No.21/Ctk/2021 Assessment Year : 2012-13

income by way of inflating its expenses under the head 'purchases', Thus, he made an addition of Rs.5.33 crore. It is clear from the assessment order that no corroborative evidences were there in possession of the AO to make the above addition. There is also no whisper in the assessment order about any bogus

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

purchase of materials and payment to bank, when the payment is overdue RKDCPL, which carrying out Road work in remote localities, needs cash sometime urgently to send its work sites Reference may be made to the voucher (Ref page no 64 of the Paper Book) of RKDCPL where it is mentioned that on 16.09.10, the RKDCPL paid

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

purchase of materials and payment to bank, when the payment is overdue RKDCPL, which carrying out Road work in remote localities, needs cash sometime urgently to send its work sites Reference may be made to the voucher (Ref page no 64 of the Paper Book) of RKDCPL where it is mentioned that on 16.09.10, the RKDCPL paid

YUKON ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2018-19 Yukon Enterprises Pvt Yukon Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, C-1, 1, Industrial Industrial Estate, Estate, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aadcg 4107 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amulya Kumar Roy, Ca Amulya Kumar Roy, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/0 /07/2024

bogus purchases of the assessee. This being so, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) stands deleted. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2024. (George Mathan) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 30/07/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

purchase made by the Assessee holding it to be bogus based on the statement given by a third party. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that, on one hand, the Assessee has discharged his initial burden whereas, on the other hand, the Revenue had denied the opportunity of cross-examination to the Appellant. On the self

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

addition made by the AO is based on mere suspicion and surmises without any cogent material to show that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in the shape of long term capital gain. On the other hand, the assessee has brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

addition made by the AO is based on mere suspicion and surmises without any cogent material to show that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in the shape of long term capital gain. On the other hand, the assessee has brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares