INDERPAL SINGH CHHABRA,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.450/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Inderpal Singh Chhabra Vs Acit, Circle Rourkela Prop: Essar Enterprises Daily Market, C/O Crazy Cool, Main Rd, Po/Ps : Rourkela, Dist : Sundargarh Pan No. :Ajlpc 6337 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra & Shri Baidyanath Behera, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 04.09.2024 In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068345718(1)), For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Transportation Of Coal & Trading In Coals. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Original Return Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed U/S.143(3) Of The Act By The Nfac & The Assessment Came To Be Completed On 10.02.2021 Accepting The Returned Income. Ld Ar Drew Our Attention To Page 3 Of The Paper Book

14. Please furnish copy of assessment order and appellate order of the last three assessment years, if any. 15. Party wise details of tax collected at source. 16. Details of parties who has filed declaration as per provisions of section 206C(1A) of the act along with amount of sale to respective party. 17. Details of buyers and amount

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.

purchase to be bogus insofar as the original bills and vouchers were un-dated and were in A4 size paper. Ld AR has placed before us the copy of the said bill, which is placed at page 20 of PB. It was the submission that the bill is dated 30.8.2013, which contain TIN No., Mobile

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

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. It was the prayer that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing officer and the assessee

SATISH KUMAR GARG,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-5, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2014-15 Satish Satish Kumar Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Income Tax Officer, Ward Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Gurudwara, Rourkela Gurudwara, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No. . (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2 2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 26.12.2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Sambalpur/10380/2016 Sambalpur/10380/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Circular No.5/2005 dated 15.07.2005). 13. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department laid emphasis on the CBDT Circular No.23 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019, as the matter related to bogus Long Term Capital Gain on Penny stock. But the said circular can only be applied prospectively

PRAKASH AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2014-15 Satish Satish Kumar Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Income Tax Officer, Ward Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Gurudwara, Rourkela Gurudwara, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No. . (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2 2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 26.12.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Sambalpur/10380/2016 Sambalpur/10380/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Circular No.5/2005 dated 15.07.2005). 13. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department laid emphasis on the CBDT Circular No.23 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019, as the matter related to bogus Long Term Capital Gain on Penny stock. But the said circular can only be applied prospectively

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

Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Circular No.5/2005 dated 15.07.2005). 13. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department laid emphasis on the CBDT Circular No.23 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019, as the matter related to bogus Long Term Capital Gain on Penny stock. But the said circular can only be applied prospectively

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus?" 7. Before delving into the issues in question, the provisions contained 1 under Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are extracted hereunder:- "Any income arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund for a unit of a business trust

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that the AO made an attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent‟s unaccounted money, but he did not dig deeper. Notices issued under Sections 133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that the AO made an attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent’s unaccounted money, but he did not dig deeper. Notices issued under Sections 133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged

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

14. The Hon’ble Kolkata High Court further went on to hold that the report submitted by the investigation department cannot be thrown out on the ground urged on behalf of the assessee as the assessee had not shown to be prejudiced on account of nonfurnishing of the investigation report or non-production of the persons for cross examination

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

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT , NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

14 of the paper book, which was the allotment letter and page 15 which was the copy of the cheque issued. It was the submission that the shares were demated and held in the demat account of the assessee in Axis Bank which was shown at page 17 of the paper book. It was the submission that

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

14 of the paper book, which was the allotment letter and page 15 which was the copy of the cheque issued. It was the submission that the shares were demated and held in the demat account of the assessee in Axis Bank which was shown at page 17 of the paper book. It was the submission that

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

purchase of shares at such a high premium. The present case is on a similar footing since the amount of loan involved is Rs.1.05 crores and Kedarnath Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. had shown income of Rs.8,61,950/- in its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. 13. It was held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

GANESH KUMAR SHARMA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-1, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal as well as on merits also

Section 292 B is for blocking Page7|8 Assessment Year : 2018-2019 the invalidation for reasons of any mistake, defect or omission to protect a notice which has been issued without jurisdiction. In the present case, admittedly, the Assessing Officer who has issued the notice u/s.148 of the Act, did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the instruction