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

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

5) of the Act, there is a specific provision that the Tribunal can admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period

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

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

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.

section 54F of the Act and that should be upheld. 5. After going through the paper and appeal folders, it was put to ld AR as to from where the funds had come, ld AR gave evasive answer and he was warned that evasive responses would lead to perverse orders. Subsequently, it was clarified that the transaction shows that

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. MAGNUM ESTATE LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132- Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. A, A, Sector Sector-A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aabcm 8066 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.21/Ctk/2021 (In Ita No.248/Ctk/2017) .248/Ctk/2017) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132- Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), A, A, Sector Sector-A, Zone-A, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcm 8066 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri J.M.Patnaik J.M.Patnaik , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 7.3.2017 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. P A G E 1 | 10 C.O.No.21/Ctk/2021 Assessment Year : 2012-13

5 | 10 C.O.No.21/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Mishra in reply to the above question stated that the difference Rs.5,33,00,000/- was bogus purchases from producers and offered the same taxation. Sri Mishra also stated that he would pay the tax of Rs.1.85 crores due on the same by 30.3.2012. However, in the return of income filed

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

5. Before us, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that during the year the assessee had received advances against the supply of goods from 10 parties totaling to Rs.1,88,71,000/-. It was submitted that in the audited financial statements these amounts were shown under the head 3 “unsecured loans”, however, these are business advances received in the normal

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T

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

bogus LTCG. Reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 2. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196(Bombay) 3. Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T