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

35(1) from the competent authority and only thereafter has given the donation for scientific research. We are in agreement with the findings of the ld CIT(A) that there is no evidence brought on record to show that the assessee has got back the donation money from the school on payment of commission, therefore, the donation cannot be treated

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

35(1) from the competent authority and only thereafter has given the donation for scientific research. We are in agreement with the findings of the ld CIT(A) that there is no evidence brought on record to show that the assessee has got back the donation money from the school on payment of commission, therefore, the donation cannot be treated

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

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

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

1 to 29 of AnnexureA-2 were found and seized from the assessee. Once confronted with the aforesaid seized documents, it was admitted by Shri Abhay Gupta that the proprietorship concern of the assessee was engaged in unaccounted cash sales and purchases and therefore there was undisclosed income. Thus the necessary logical fall out of the aforesaid is that there

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

iv) Repair to the building - Rs.4,35,364/-: This amount relates to 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

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

iv) Repair to the building - Rs.4,35,364/-: This amount relates to 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

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

iv) Repair to the building - Rs.4,35,364/-: This amount relates to 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

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

iv) Repair to the building - Rs.4,35,364/-: This amount relates to 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35,509/- from printing and stationery. 2. At the outset, ld. AR did not press grounds No.1 & 3 for which he has endorsed to it in the memo of appeal. Accordingly, grounds No.1 & 3 are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Ground No.2 is relating to addition of Rs.1,88,71,000/- made by the AO and confirmed

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

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

35,24,450/- as unexplained since the creditworthiness of Tribhuvan Tradecom Private Limited remained unexplained. iv.) The Id. CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 22.06.2020 adjudicated the appeal in favour of the department on following grounds: a) The remand report of the A.O. dated 18.05.2020 has been reproduced by the Id. CIT(A) in para-6.3 on page

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

35. ITR 519. In that case, the assessee carried on business as a distiller of country liquor and sold the produce of its distillery to licensed wholesalers. Under a scheme devised by the Government, the distiller (assessee) was entitled to charge the wholesaler a price for the bottles in which the liquor was supplied, at rates fixed by the Government

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

35. ITR 519. In that case, the assessee carried on business as a distiller of country liquor and sold the produce of its distillery to licensed wholesalers. Under a scheme devised by the Government, the distiller (assessee) was entitled to charge the wholesaler a price for the bottles in which the liquor was supplied, at rates fixed by the Government

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

35,000 customers. Both the Department and the appellant have failed to prove their point with any clinching evidence. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case some reasonable estimation is to be resorted to in deciding the issue. The AO having not been able to establish the entire advance as bogus, has conceded the major portion

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

35,000 customers. Both the Department and the appellant have failed to prove their point with any clinching evidence. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case some reasonable estimation is to be resorted to in deciding the issue. The AO having not been able to establish the entire advance as bogus, has conceded the major portion

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES (P) LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.232&233/Ctk/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar Vs. Rajdhani Systems &Estates (P) Ltd., A/170, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr 8271 L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.253&254/Ctk/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Rajdhani Systems &Estates Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), (P) Ltd., A/170, Sahid Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabcr 8271 L (अपीऱाथी /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.

35,000 customers. Both the Department and the appellant have failed to prove their point with any clinching evidence. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case some reasonable estimation is to be resorted to in deciding the issue. The AO having not been able to establish the entire advance as bogus, has conceded the major portion