OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

1) of the I.T. Act. This rendered order passed by the Assessing Officer erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue to that extent. The Tribunal was, thus, supposed to adjudge the validity of such an order and not to go beyond when the challenge before it was limited to the said order passed by CIT in exercising the powers

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 6 when: Sources and genuineness of s of Rs 1,56,24,000/- received and paid back(unsecured loan/credits) is not explained and neither balance of Rs 32,47,000/- (claimed as advances against sales) has been explained reasonably and found to be afterthought to give colour of unexplained unsecured loans (as shown as per balance sheet) as advance

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

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

56,73,845/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Kishore Kumar 2014-15 38,82,500/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) Mohapatra Parbati Mohapatra 2014-15 50,83,000/- M/s Lifeline Durgs & Pharma Ltd. Kuntala Mohapatra 2014-15 50,43,545/- M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. (KAFL) 4. The common grievance of revenue relates to holding of bogus Long

TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD.,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

bogus. Ld A.R. referred to page 3 of the APB i.e. ledger account of Zodiac Enterprises from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012, wherein, it has been shown as at 1.4.2011, the amount of Rs.17,36,046/- in opening balance as well as closing balance, therefore, same amount has been brought forward from the preceding year

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

1 | 10 C.O.No.21/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2012-13 2. The only effective ground taken by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,33,00,000/- on account of inflation on purchase based on the statement of one of the Director at the time of survey. 3. Facts in brief

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

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

1. In the additional and modified grounds of appeal filed on 14.06.2022, the Id. AR of the appellant firm has challenged the reopening u/s.147 on the ground that no addition can be made on the basis of third party information gathered by the Investigation Wing which has not been verified by the A.O. and he had not provided copy