M/S.BALLURAM STEELS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.291/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) M/S Balluram Steels Pvt. Ltd, Vs Pr.Cit, Central Circle, 1St Floor, Purohit Market Complex Visakhapatnam Main Road, Rourkela-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 7253 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam, Dated 28.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That In The Course Of Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act, The Ao Had Disbelieved The Transaction Of The Purchase Of Iron Ore & Had Invoked The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Of The Act & Had Made The Disallowance Of Purchases. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Pr.Cit Has Invoked His Powers U/S.263 Of The Act & Had Directed That The Provisions Of Sectiion 37(1) Of The Act Is Not To Be Applied But The Provisions Of Section 69C Of The Act Are To Be Applied. It Was The Submission That The Issue Is Now Squarely Covered By The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Bajrang Steel & Alloys Private Limited, Passed

disallowance of purchases. It was the submission that the ld. Pr.CIT has invoked his powers u/s.263 of the Act and had directed that the provisions of Sectiion 37(1) of the Act is not to be applied but the provisions of Section 69C of the Act are to be applied. It was the submission that the issue is now squarely

ORISSA CHROME EXPORT & MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Orissa Orissa Chrome Chrome Export Export & & Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(2), Mining Company Pvt Ltd., A Mining Company Pvt Ltd., A- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar 65/1, 65/1, Nayapali, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaco 4389 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri Suresh Shivanand Shivanandan, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) -1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated17.9.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0344/16-17 For The Assessment Year Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For Th Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S E Assessee & Shri Suresh Shivanandan, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. , Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

disallowance of purchase of machinery costing Rs.10,15,000/- on the ground that the Assessing Officer had held the purchase to be bogus

B.C. BHUYAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalwalassessment Year : 2014-15 B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt B.C.Bhuyan Construction Pvt Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle - Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, Ltd., Plot No.90, Palasuni, 1(1), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aadcb 3304 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Adv Revenue By Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Saroj Kumar Mahapatra, Pr. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /07/2023

disallow the sundry creditors being purchase in respect of Classic Engineers of Rs.38,98,562/- and Kanchan Industries of Rs.32,79,673/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer has not even examined the said sundry creditors but has treated the same as bogus

T R CHEMICALS LIMITED,ODISHA vs. PCIT SAMBALPUR, ODISHA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.219/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) T R Chemicals Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Main Road, Subash Chowk, Rajgangpur, Odisha-770017 Pan No. :Aabct 1919 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bajoria & Shri Yogesh Banka, Ars राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 15.01.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Return Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & The Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.147 Of The Act Wherein The Purchases From M/S Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd. Were Disallowed By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Pr.Cit Invoked His Power U/S.263 Of The Act On The Ground That The Disallowances Made By The Ao U/S.37(1) Of The Act Instead Of Section 69C Of The Act, Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Was Submitted That The Issue Is Now Squarely Covered By The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Bajrang Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., Passed In Ita No.553/Ctk/2024, Order Dated

purchases from M/s Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd. were disallowed by invoking the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the ld. Pr.CIT invoked his power u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that the disallowances made by the AO u/s.37(1) of the Act instead of Section 69C of the Act, is erroneous

SANSAR AGROPOL PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. I.T.O. WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowances made by the AO: I) Rs 50,000/- from Vehicle Running and Maintenance Expenses II) Rs 70,500/- from Tours and Travel III) Rs 35,509/- from printing and stationery. 2. At the outset, ld. AR did not press grounds No.1 & 3 for which he has endorsed to it in the memo of appeal. Accordingly, grounds No.1

PRADEEP KUMAR PANSARI,MANGLABAG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.65/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Pradeep Kumar Pansari, Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack C/O Rajhans, Manglabag, Odisha Pan No. :Abbpp 3377 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Office Of The Cit(A), Delhi, Dated 07.01.2024, In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1059445764 (1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. In This Appeal, Though The Assessee Has Taken Five Grounds Of Appeal, However, The Only Issue Is Pertaining To The Addition Of Rs.9,19,045/- Made By Treating The Commission Claimed By The Assessee As Bogus. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Engaged In The Retail Business Of Readymade Garments, Textile Items, Leather Goods & Other Accessories Under The Name & Style M/S Rajhans. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.09.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.21,22,416/- & The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3)

bogus claim. 4. In first appeal, the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Delhi confirmed the disallowance so made, thus, the assessee is before us in appeal. 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee stated that the commission was paid during the normal course of business and it was paid to the parties for soliciting purchases

HANUMAN KHEDARIA HUF,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD 2, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela. C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Market, Market, Kachery Road, Rourkela. Kachery Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca .R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/12 12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

bogus transaction in the shares of Shreenath Commercial and Finance ltd. It was the submission that no proof of purchase and sale of shares or the bank account have been produced. He vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A). Ld Sr DR took us through the order of the ld CIT(A) in detail which

GITA DEVI GUPTA,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year :2017-18 Gita Devi Gupta, Pro. M/S. Gita Devi Gupta, Pro. M/S. Vs. Dcit, Assessment Circle Dcit, Assessment Circle D.D. Textiles, Nandi Sahi, D.D. Textiles, Nandi Sahi, 2(1), Cuttack 2(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aazpg 8154 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 7/8/ /2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 7/8 /8/2024 O R D E R

bogus. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee has also shown the sales and purchases in respect of various persons to whom the commission has been paid. The sales/purchases corresponding to the commission paid have not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the commission

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the claim of the appellant regarding Long Term Capital Gains by ignoring the evidences and submissions made by the appellant. 2 3. For that under the facts and in the circumstance of the case the amount of Rs.65,55,972/- should not have been treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 and should have been accepted as income from Long

SANDEEP KUMAR AGARWAL,JAGATPUR vs. ACIT,NFAC, DELHI, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Sandeep Kumar Kumar Agarwal, Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack C/O. Agarwal Spices & C/O. Agarwal Spices & Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Jagatpur. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aarpa 8064 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed the entire sale consideration to make the addition of Rs.81,41,052/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had further made an addition of commission alleged to have been paid to intermediaries to an extent of Rs.4,07,053/- though no evidence of such expenditure was found nor it was claimed by the assessee

BIRANCHI NARAYAN SAHOO,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Biranchi Biranchi Narayan Narayan Sahoo, Sahoo, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Majhi Sahi, Khan Nagar, Majhi Sahi, Khan Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Ayakar Bhavan, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acrps 1312 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ar Naik, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10 /01 01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/01 /01/2023 O R D E R

disallowed advance from customers shown in the balance sheet to an extent of Rs.35,11,260/-. The Assessing Officer had asked the assessee to provide the names and addresses from whom the advances were received. The assessee had provided a list, which contained the names and addresses available with the assessee, the amount of advance and the Adhar Card Numbers