TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

bogus. Ld A.R. referred to page 3 of the APB i.e. ledger account of Zodiac Enterprises from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012, wherein, it has been shown as at 1.4.2011, the amount of Rs.17,36,046/- in opening balance as well as closing balance, therefore, same amount has been brought forward from the preceding year. P a g e 2

ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. BISWAJIT DAS, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

bogus or forged one.To decide the issue whether all these units are engaged in any manufacturing or production of article or thing, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 43. Provision of sec. 10A of the Act which deals with the special provisions in respect of the newly established undertakings in free

BISWAJIT DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2010-2011

bogus or forged one.To decide the issue whether all these units are engaged in any manufacturing or production of article or thing, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 43. Provision of sec. 10A of the Act which deals with the special provisions in respect of the newly established undertakings in free

ACIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

purchasers. Further, non-service of letters to the buyers or non-compliance of the letters by the buyers does not show that the payment of commission was not genuine when the relative sale was considered genuine and accepted by the department. Further, non- P a g e 21 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela furnishing

INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. DCIT, RORUKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

purchasers. Further, non-service of letters to the buyers or non-compliance of the letters by the buyers does not show that the payment of commission was not genuine when the relative sale was considered genuine and accepted by the department. Further, non- P a g e 21 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela furnishing

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

E. N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (75 taxmann.com 215) held that assessment proceedings generated by issuance of a notice under section 153A(1)(a) can be concluded against interest of assessee including making additions even without any incriminating material being available against assessee in search under section 132 on basis of which notice was issued under section 153A

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

22,927/- Profit before depreciation estimated @ 25% Of gross receipts Rs. 9,55,732/-(B) C, Profit before depreciation (A+-B) Rs. 55.82,712/- Less; Depreciation allowable Rs. 34,35,249/- D. Income from business Rs. 21,47,463/- E. Income from house property Rs. 87,115/- F. Income from other sources Rs. 7,63,190/- Gross total income Rs.29

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

2 of his statement. He simply stated that everything was managed by brokers/agents in reply to question no.2 5 of his statement. b) Moreover in spite of such a huge investment, he was not able to produce receipts for rent payments, electricity bills and other evidences (utility bills) in support of business activities in reply to question no.26

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.

22 24940.5 31.1.14 20 18117.84 3.2.14 43 37063.63 4.2.14 11 9135.07 5.2.14 50 39523.07 6.2.14 20 15715.33 7.2.14 26 20158.09 11.2.14 9 6795.95 24.2.14 20 10759.04 1000 1107865.24 Long term profit -880244.21 Total: 1107866 4. It was the submission that the assessee had purchased shares for Rs.2,27,627.12 and same was sold at Rs.11,07,865.24 thereby generating long

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.

22 24940.5 31.1.14 20 18117.84 3.2.14 43 37063.63 4.2.14 11 9135.07 5.2.14 50 39523.07 6.2.14 20 15715.33 7.2.14 26 20158.09 11.2.14 9 6795.95 24.2.14 20 10759.04 1000 1107865.24 Long term profit -880244.21 Total: 1107866 4. It was the submission that the assessee had purchased shares for Rs.2,27,627.12 and same was sold at Rs.11,07,865.24 thereby generating long

MAHANADI METAL AND CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.496/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010 - 2011) M/S Mahanadi Metal & Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Rourkela Chemicals Private Limited, T/4/26/Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaccm 4844 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Parimal Kumar Jain, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A), Sambalpur, Dated 04.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Not Justified In Holding The Nature Of Expenses Of S/ 957144 Under The Head Commission Instead Of Contract Work. (Para 4). 2. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Understanding The Accounting Entry Of Discount Of Rs. 16,91,687 & Wrongly Treated The Bogus Sundry Creditor. (Para8) 3. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Not Justified In Rejection Of Additional Evidence & Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 999390 For Non-Submission Of Vat Return, (Para-9) 4. On The Fact & Under Circumstances Of The Case The Commissioner (Appeals) Was Unjustified For Not Sending For Remand The Case & Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2799978. 2 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income

E R Per L.P.Sahu, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order of CIT(A), Sambalpur, dated 04.09.2017 for the assessment year 2010-2011, on the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the fact and under circumstances of the case the commissioner (appeals) was not justified in holding the nature of expenses of s/ 957144 under

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

e. 10(38) in respect of the sale of shares of MIs. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL). The relevant extracts from the ITAT order are as under-: 'We find force in the arguments of the ld AR that the Id AD was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human

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

e. 10(38) in respect of the sale of shares of MIs. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL). The relevant extracts from the ITAT order are as under-: 'We find force in the arguments of the ld AR that the Id AD was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human

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

e. 10(38) in respect of the sale of shares of MIs. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL). The relevant extracts from the ITAT order are as under-: 'We find force in the arguments of the ld AR that the Id AD was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human

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

e. 10(38) in respect of the sale of shares of MIs. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL). The relevant extracts from the ITAT order are as under-: 'We find force in the arguments of the ld AR that the Id AD was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human

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

e. 10(38) in respect of the sale of shares of MIs. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL). The relevant extracts from the ITAT order are as under-: 'We find force in the arguments of the ld AR that the Id AD was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human

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

e. 10(38) in respect of the sale of shares of MIs. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL). The relevant extracts from the ITAT order are as under-: 'We find force in the arguments of the ld AR that the Id AD was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human

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

e. 10(38) in respect of the sale of shares of MIs. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL). The relevant extracts from the ITAT order are as under-: 'We find force in the arguments of the ld AR that the Id AD was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human

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

e. 10(38) in respect of the sale of shares of MIs. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL). The relevant extracts from the ITAT order are as under-: 'We find force in the arguments of the ld AR that the Id AD was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human