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

28 /02/ 2017 O R D E R Per Bench These are cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 12.9.2014, for the assessment year 2010-2011. ITA No. 493/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1 2. In the revenue’s appeal, the grievance is that

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

28 /02/ 2017 O R D E R Per Bench These are cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 12.9.2014, for the assessment year 2010-2011. ITA No. 493/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1 2. In the revenue’s appeal, the grievance is that

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

M/S. GRM TRADING CO.,ANGUL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), 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 : 2012-13 M/S. Grm Trading Co., Bazar M/S. Grm Trading Co., Bazar Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Chowk, Angul. Chowk, Angul. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aajfg 9627 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shrip.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20/6 6/ 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/ /6/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

28,018.92 minus Rs.25,25,48,378/-). In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 for the reason for failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year

RAVI METALLICS LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. PR.CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

bogus purchases of Rs.4,90,66,446/-, the appellant company had reduced its GP and NP. These aspects had been overlooked by the A.O. while completing the original assessment on 05.04.2016. On the first and fifth issues, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance Ltd. (88 taxmann.com

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

bogus sundry creditor. (para8) 3. On the fact and under circumstances of the case the commissioner (appeals) was not justified in rejection of additional evidence and confirming the disallowance of Rs. 999390 for non-submission of Vat return, (para-9) 4. On the fact and under circumstances of the case the commissioner (appeals) was unjustified for not sending for remand

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 133(6) from all of them vide his letters dated 20.01.2014. It is significant to mention here that confirmations were received from all the 10 parties and examined by the AO. In the first para of page 3 of the Assessment Order (Page-5 of the paper book) the AO has observed as under in this regard. "For further

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

28,172/- claimed u/s. 10(38) of the Act. After perusing the records, I find that in the instant case the investment in shares made by the assessee reveals that he has not been dealing in shares on a regular basis and the entries of LTCG have also been taken by other members of the assessee company and the purchase

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

purchased shares worth Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.3,22,00,000/- respectively from Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited were not found on the website of MCA. Thus receipts to the extent of Rs.3,47,00,000/- in the hands of Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited have remained unexplained. c) The A.O. also reported to the CIT(A) that Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited

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

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

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

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

section 40A(3) included the labour payments, which had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer under the heads “bogus labour payment” to an extent of Rs.6,86,19,336/-. It was the submission that this amounts to double addition. It was the further submission that the Assessing Officer himself has accepted in page 18 of his order that the assessee

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

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

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS (P) LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.235&236/Ctk/2012 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar Vs. Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters (P) Ltd. A/170, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaach 9591 G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.249&250/Ctk/2012 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Hi-Tech Estates & Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), Promoters (P) Ltd. A/170, Bhubaneswar Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaach 9591 G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar All Dated 01.02.2012 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. Since The Issue & Facts Involved In These Appeals Are Interconnected, Therefore, They Are Being Heard & Disposed Off Together As Under. 3. In Assessee’S Appeal Grounds No.2 In The Assessment Year 2007- 08 & Ground No.2 In The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Directed Against

bogus, has conceded the major portion of the addition made viz; 75%. The AO requests for retaining 25% of the advances. 29.14 1 have carefully weighed the rival submission and have pondered over the issue in detail. Upon such careful consideration I tend to agree with the remand report of the AO. In the assessment order and in the subsequent