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

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

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

purchases of iron ore is itself is bogus and as the transaction is bogus the provision of Section 69C is to be invoked. It was submission that vehicles used for the alleged transportation of the Iron ore were not vehicles which could carry the Iron Ore. It was submission that one of the vehicles was the motor cycle

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PURI vs. KRUSHNA CHANDRA PUJAPANDA, PURI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.448/Ctk/2024 C.O. No.06/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23) Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Vs Krushna Chandra Pujapanda, Bhavan, Penthakata, Puri Matimandap Sahi, H.O.Puri Town, Puri. Pan No. : Abdpp 0879 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, Ca : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 5 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 5 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 4.9.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No.Nfac/2021-22/10363554 For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee In Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.448/Ctk/2024. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

3. Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. 4. It was submitted by ld AR that in the cross objection, the assessee has challenged the action of the revenue in filing the appeal against the order of ld CIT(A), where the assessee has been

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

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

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

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

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

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

Section 1.42 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 Ref: DIN & Notice No: ITHA/AST/F/142(1)/2019-20/1024705442(1) Dated: 05/02/2020 Dear Sir, Please find below the point wise revert to the queries raised by your honor. 1. Details of all bank accounts and bank statements maintained by you during the assessment year Please find bank statement of Current account maintained with Allahabad

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

bogus entry providers nor have they been questioned. Ld AR further drew our attention to the bank statement reflecting the sale proceeds received from M/s. Ashoka Stock Broking Ltd. These evidences were found in the paper book from pages 1 to 23 of PB. It P a g e 3 | 10 Assessment Year : 2014-15 was the further submission that

MUKESH AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.631/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Mukesh Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Adipa 0575 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

bogus transactions in the shares of KAFL also did not implicate the assessee and/or his broker. It is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These

PUJA AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD 1, ROURKELA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.628/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Puja Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Agwpa 5744 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

bogus transactions in the shares of KAFL also did not implicate the assessee and/or his broker. It is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These

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

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above noted factors, including

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de- through banking channels." The above noted factors, including the deficient enquiry conducted