DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

Section 263 of the Act and directed the AO to do denovo assessment by adding/disallowing an amount of Rs 1344.63 Crore u/s 40 (a) (i) towards import purchases. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid Order, PPL filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT and the Hon'bie ITAT vide Order dtd 13th June, 2013 quashed the direction

BASUKINATH ROADWAYS PVT. LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

215 (Kerala): "Section 153A, read with section 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search & seizure - Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Whether for issuance of a notice under section 153A(1)(a), it is not necessary that search on which it was founded should have necessarily yielded any incriminating material against assessee or person to whom such notice

KHIMJI K.D. SONS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.269/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Khimji K.D. Sons Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Plot No.621/A, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar Pin-751007 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabck 3660 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

215 Taxman 597 (Kar.) (v) CIT vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd. – 334 ITR 122 (P&H) o (vi) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. – 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) (vii) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. – 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) 6 6. In following decisions, the Hon’ble High Courts strictly interpreted section 36(1) (va) in favour

MILIND GUPTA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is partly

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

215 Taxman 597 (Kar.) (v) CIT vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd. – 334 ITR 122 (P&H) o (vi) CIT vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. – 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) o (vii) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. – 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) 6. In following decisions, the Hon’ble High Courts strictly interpreted section 36(1) (va) in favour

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

disallowance of Rs.2741.91 crares is hereby confirmed" . In this regard it is respectfully submitted as under: 2.9 That the addition has been sustained by CIT (Appeals) relying on the order dt.20.03.2018 of this Hon' ble Tribunal for the AYs 2010-11 to 2014- 15. The Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the addition vide order dt.20.03.2018 by referring to its own decision

M/S- SBEP-GRIL(JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

215 of the assessee‟s paper book, it is clear that that the assessee not only undertakes the entrepreneur risk, financial risk and investment risk, which are the well 40 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 settled parameters to distinguish a contractor- cum-developer from a mere contractor engaged in works contract. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was required to furnish details

SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD,JHARSUGUDA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

215 of the assessee‟s paper book, it is clear that that the assessee not only undertakes the entrepreneur risk, financial risk and investment risk, which are the well 40 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 settled parameters to distinguish a contractor- cum-developer from a mere contractor engaged in works contract. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was required to furnish details

M/S- RAWAT BALAJI (JOINT VENTURE),JHARSUGUDA vs. PRILNCIPAL, CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

215 of the assessee‟s paper book, it is clear that that the assessee not only undertakes the entrepreneur risk, financial risk and investment risk, which are the well 40 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 settled parameters to distinguish a contractor- cum-developer from a mere contractor engaged in works contract. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was required to furnish details

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRI SAI RAMESWARA SOLVENTS PVT. LTD., KORAPUT

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण) अऩीऱ सं/It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.24-26/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.27-29/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act was not to be done as payments had been made in excess of Rs.20,000/- or above on a single day to a single party. It was the submission that the assessee had responded mentioning four issues, first in respect of expenses below or at Rs.20000/-, second was the payment to cultivator and third

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRI SAI RAMESWARA SOLVENTS PVT. LTD., KORAPUT

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण) अऩीऱ सं/It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.24-26/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.27-29/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act was not to be done as payments had been made in excess of Rs.20,000/- or above on a single day to a single party. It was the submission that the assessee had responded mentioning four issues, first in respect of expenses below or at Rs.20000/-, second was the payment to cultivator and third

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. SRI SAI RAMESWARA SOLVENTS PVT. LTD., KORAPUT

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण) अऩीऱ सं/It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.24-26/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A Nos.04-06/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aajcs 3201 K & Cross Objection Nos.27-29/Ctk/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.81-83/Ctk/2021) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 To 2015-2016) M/S Sri Sai Rameswara Solvents Vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Pvt. Ltd., Bhadraya Street, Bhubaneswar Jeypore, Koraput-764001 Pan No. : Aabcp 3276 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act was not to be done as payments had been made in excess of Rs.20,000/- or above on a single day to a single party. It was the submission that the assessee had responded mentioning four issues, first in respect of expenses below or at Rs.20000/-, second was the payment to cultivator and third

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

disallowance resulting 5 IT(SS)A No.31-44/CTK/2022 & ITA No.109/CTK/2022 in addition to income made for Rs.19,39,60,866/-, is directed to be deleted.” The ITAT by its judgment dated 16th May, 2014 relied on the selfsame reasoning and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Likewise, the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 5th July, 2017, affirmed the judgments

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

Section 68, being just 86 proper be upheld 8& the departmental ground on this account be dismissed. 3. For that even if assuming but not admitting that as held by the CIT (A) the disclosed receipt of Rs. 29,61,593/- disclosed under the head business income voluntarily are to be treated as rental income under the head "Income from

ITO, KHURDA vs. BULARAM DALAI, KHURDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

215 Taxman 104 (Mag.)/356 ITR 594 (Guj.)(HC), where the AO proposed to reopen the assessment of the assessee within four years from the end of the assessment year, on the very same issues on which he had raised queries while framing the original assessment reopening was held to be invalid as the reopening suffered from change of opinion

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Section 17(3) of SICA. The OA submitted Draft Rehabilitation Scheme to the BIFR on 20.02.2008. After hearing the concerned parties BIFR finally sanctioned the Scheme based on its final hearing held on 02.09.2008 and issued the same vide its letter dated 03.10.2008. As per the Sanctioned Scheme, various unsecured creditors foregone a substantial amount of their outstanding amount