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

69(C) of the Act, was well within the purview of the learned CIT(A), insofar as, obviously the AO should also have been granted another opportunity to represent its case before the learned CIT(A). It is admitted fact the learned AO in the show-cause notice has referred to the provision

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69,000/- was made on account of capital introduction by the assessee as unexplained credit in the hands of the firm which therefore, established that the assessee has not been able to prove the genuineness of the source of the capital introduced in the partnership firm. The Id Sr. DR further submitted that the Id CIT(A) while confirming

BAJRANG STEEL & ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,SUNDARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.553/Ctk/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Bajrang Steel & Alloys Private Vs Pcit, Sambalpur Limited Plot No:- 31, Kalunga, Near Kalunga High School, Sundergarh, 770031 Pan No. : Aaacm 2123 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Miss Sarmila Agarwal, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

bogus purchases. It was submission that the Ld. PCIT invoked its power u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that the AO in the show cause notice proposed the addition u/s 69C of the Act but had made the addition u/s. 37(1) of the Act in the course of assessment. The 2 Ld. PCIT issued show cause notice

SANDEEP KUMAR AGARWAL,JAGATPUR vs. ACIT,NFAC, DELHI, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Sandeep Kumar Kumar Agarwal, Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack C/O. Agarwal Spices & C/O. Agarwal Spices & Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Jagatpur. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aarpa 8064 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

69 of the order that the legal principle which can be culled out from the above decision is that to prove the allegations, against the assessee, can be inferred by a logical process of reasoning from the totality of the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations/charges made and levelled and when direct evidence is not available

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

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT , NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 10(38) of the Act, the requirement was only 12 months. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the ld. AO without considering the submissions of the assessee. It was the prayer that the assessee may be held to be eligible for the exemption u/s.10

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 10(38) of the Act, the requirement was only 12 months. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the ld. AO without considering the submissions of the assessee. It was the prayer that the assessee may be held to be eligible for the exemption u/s.10