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

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

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

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

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

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

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

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

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

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

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

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

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

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

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

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

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

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

39,34,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 61,12,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Sitansu Mohapatra 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 37,25,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. 2014-15 61,25,908/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 2015-16 62,58,250/- M/s Lifeline

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

1. There is a delay of 315 days in filing of present appeal. The revision order u/s.263 was received by the appellant on 05.04.2019 and as such the appeal was required to be filed on 04.06.2019. The appeal was filed on 20th April, 2021 resulting in a delay of 315 days. In the application for condonation of delay

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 to 3 which reads as under :- 7 Written Submission Per AO- Rejected the claim of Exemption u/s.10(38) in respect of Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale of shares. Assessment made u/s.143(3) dt.27.12.2018. CIT(A)- The contention of the appellant that the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed relief to the appellant

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

39, First Floor, Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag AN Lane, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001 on 12.08.2015 by DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1(3), Hyderabad who had sold bullions to the assessee during the relevant previous year. From the impounded documents of M/s. Vertex Gold Trading Ltd., it was found that the assessee has made a total purchase of Rs.27,15,28,018.92 during

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