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

purchases‟ and 5% profit on the „unproved sales‟ stands deleted. 16. In respect of cash creditors, which have been added, it was the submission by ld AR that the assessee neither in the course of search nor in the post search enquiry has any evidence been found to show that the financial companies with whom the assessee had dealt with

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

bogus or is a ploy adopted by the assessee to reduce the taxable profit. 2.3 The AO in the assessment order has given a list of commission agents, letters issued to whom have not been replied. Since all the relevant details relating to commission payments were given by the assessee, the onus cast on the assessee appears to have been

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

bogus or is a ploy adopted by the assessee to reduce the taxable profit. 2.3 The AO in the assessment order has given a list of commission agents, letters issued to whom have not been replied. Since all the relevant details relating to commission payments were given by the assessee, the onus cast on the assessee appears to have been

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

bogus warranting addition in the income of the assessee. It is again submitted that there is no dispute that the goods have been purchased and the genuinity of the purchase have not been disputed and it was because that the provisions of section 40A(3) have been applied. Moreover, the assessee maintained day-to-day stock register wherein

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus sundry creditors" representing advance from buyers. The contention of the Ld CIT(Appeals) is that since after showing the amount in the balance sheet duly audited by a chartered accountant as unsecured loan, the appellant is claiming that the said advance was wrongly classified as unsecured loan though it was actually advance receipt from buyers. Though the reason

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MGM MINERALS LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

bogus or inflated. Ground no.3 raised by the revenue stands dismissed. 12. Ground No.4 relates to charity and donation expenses claimed at Rs.1,62,000/-. Ld. AO disallowed the claim being not incurred for business purpose. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by giving a general finding that the same needs to be spent for every business entity. We, however

MGM MINERALS LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

bogus or inflated. Ground no.3 raised by the revenue stands dismissed. 12. Ground No.4 relates to charity and donation expenses claimed at Rs.1,62,000/-. Ld. AO disallowed the claim being not incurred for business purpose. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by giving a general finding that the same needs to be spent for every business entity. We, however

MGM MINERALS LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, for A.Y. 2010-11 Cross appeals in ITANo

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.420/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mgm Minerals Limited Vs Jcit-Range-1, 2-A, Forest Park Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. : Aadcm2818E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

bogus or inflated. Ground no.3 raised by the revenue stands dismissed. 12. Ground No.4 relates to charity and donation expenses claimed at Rs.1,62,000/-. Ld. AO disallowed the claim being not incurred for business purpose. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by giving a general finding that the same needs to be spent for every business entity. We, however

BAJRANG STEEL & ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,SUNDARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.553/Ctk/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Bajrang Steel & Alloys Private Vs Pcit, Sambalpur Limited Plot No:- 31, Kalunga, Near Kalunga High School, Sundergarh, 770031 Pan No. : Aaacm 2123 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Miss Sarmila Agarwal, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

bogus purchases. It was submission that the Ld. PCIT invoked its power u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that the AO in the show cause notice proposed the addition u/s 69C of the Act but had made the addition u/s. 37(1) of the Act in the course of assessment. The 2 Ld. PCIT issued show cause notice

DCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

purchase of GGI sheets on 30.12.2005 and repairs in pursuance to agreement entered in financial year 2004-05. Accordingly, the provision should have been made during that year. In any case, no evidence was furnished that the same accrued during the year; (v) Raising expenses- Rs.12,02,510/-: These expenses mostly consist of raising of mineral ore at Dubna mines

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

purchase of GGI sheets on 30.12.2005 and repairs in pursuance to agreement entered in financial year 2004-05. Accordingly, the provision should have been made during that year. In any case, no evidence was furnished that the same accrued during the year; (v) Raising expenses- Rs.12,02,510/-: These expenses mostly consist of raising of mineral ore at Dubna mines

JCIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

purchase of GGI sheets on 30.12.2005 and repairs in pursuance to agreement entered in financial year 2004-05. Accordingly, the provision should have been made during that year. In any case, no evidence was furnished that the same accrued during the year; (v) Raising expenses- Rs.12,02,510/-: These expenses mostly consist of raising of mineral ore at Dubna mines

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

purchase of GGI sheets on 30.12.2005 and repairs in pursuance to agreement entered in financial year 2004-05. Accordingly, the provision should have been made during that year. In any case, no evidence was furnished that the same accrued during the year; (v) Raising expenses- Rs.12,02,510/-: These expenses mostly consist of raising of mineral ore at Dubna mines

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHA,BARIPADA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-2014

purchases similar to the amount of bogus sundry creditors, should also have been disallowed at the time of computing profit from the assessee's rice mill business. Failure to do so on the part of the Assessing Officer has rendered the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, he set aside the order

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

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHOO,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012 - 2013) Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sahoo, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Cuttack Prop. Of New Kanak Jewellery & Kanak Transport, At/Po: New Market, Keonjhar-758001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Arkps 2114 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri B.R.Panda/Satyajit Nanda, Advs. : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 18.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. As Per The Office Note/Order Sheet Entry, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 48 Days. In This Regard, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. Considering The Application Along With The Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Dr Did Not Object To The Same, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & The Appeal Is Heard Finally.

bogus and fictitious expenses to non-existing parties. But where the genuineness of the payment has not been doubted such addition U/s.40A(3) of the IT Act can not be made in mechanical manner. Thus the orders of the forum below are erred in law. VI. For that the disallowance/addition of expenses applying the percentage rate by the Id. Assessing

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

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

2 dismissed the appeal, therefore, being aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. During the course of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is barred by limitation as the impugned year is of 2013-2014 and as per the limitation provided u/s.153 of the Act, the notice u/s.148