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

bogus or is a ploy adopted by the assessee to reduce the taxable profit. 2.3 The AO in the assessment order has given a list of commission agents, letters issued to whom have not been replied. Since all the relevant details relating to commission payments were given by the assessee, the onus cast on the assessee appears to have been

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

2(22)(e). 5. In view of the foregoing, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, made relying on the decisions in Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd. (supra), nor has any been brought to our notice. We may further add that our decision is also in harmony with the law as explained in Walchand

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

2 | 10 C.O.No.21/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2012-13 income by way of inflating its expenses under the head “purchases” and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. In first appeal, the addition made by the AO was deleted. Hence, the revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld CIT DR supporting the assessment order submitted

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

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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net 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

56,000 2,000 21.07.2014 5,03,000 3,000 23.07.2014 7,53,000 3,000 07.08.2014 7,53,000 1,000 08.08.2014 2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long

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

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

section 147 of the Act have to be exercised after a period of four years only if there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts and information, by the assessee. On the other hand, the re-opening in the present case, has been done within a period of four years hence the condition of failure