ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINTLINK COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue i

unexplained cash credit u/s.68. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.70,20,469/- made by the AO on account of disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINTLINK COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue i

unexplained cash credit u/s.68. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.70,20,469/- made by the AO on account of disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLER-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S.LAND & WATER PROJECTS PVT. LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am (Through : Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.424/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S Land & Water Projects Bhubaneswar Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.14(W), Ashok Nagar Bhubaneswar-751002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Panno. : Aabcl 6312 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate

disallowance on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act : Rs.1,91,07,057/-; ii) disallowance of expenses claim

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

unexplained cash credit in the form of “sundry creditors for raw material and expenses”, to income tax as the income in addition to the returned income of the assessee for assessment year concerned u/s.68 or 41(1) of the I.T.Act. vi. Alternatively, the corresponding purchases similar to the amount of bogus sundry creditors, would be disallowed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the claim of the appellant regarding Long Term Capital Gains by ignoring the evidences and submissions made by the appellant. 2 3. For that under the facts and in the circumstance of the case the amount of Rs.65,55,972/- should not have been treated as unexplained cash credit

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words "shall be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year". The Supreme Court while interpreting similar phraseology used in section

BAIDYABOOTI PHARMACY,BHUBANESWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

unexplained cash credit and third being the disallowance of trade expenses of Rs.5,06,784/-. A perusal of the order

DHANALAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.153/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Vs. Ito, Angul Ward, Angul Laxmi Bazar, Angul-759122 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfd 8791 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, Advs. िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

credit u/s.68 of the Act. Further he noticed that the assessee had paid interest on the above loan to written off Rs.2,29,841/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 7 6. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission

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

unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 69 of the Act and additions were made thereafter. It was the submission that all the purchases and the sales were by cheques, supported by invoices and entered in the stock register. The ld. AR specifically submitted that for none of the years

PRASANTA KUMAR MOHAPATRA,KEONJHAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.113/Ctk/2021 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Mining Road, New Market, Keonjhar, Odisha Pan No. :Aavpm 9636 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2024 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 Dated 25.08.2021, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1035100447(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Committed Serious Error In Modify The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Ld Assessing Officer Which Is Unjust, Illegal, Arbitrary, Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions F The Act, Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Been Made In Gross Violation To The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Annulled. 2. That, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Sambalpur Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Jurisdiction Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order Thereof Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled. 3. That, The Ld Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Invoking The Section 263 Of The Act Which Is Beyond The Scope Of Power Vested With The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax & For Which The Order There Off Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Annulled.

disallowance of Rs.3 lakh was made to the returned income. Thereafter the ld. PCIT Sambalpur had initiated the proceedings u/s 263 and passed the impugned order wherein ld. PCIT has modified the assessment order and added a sum of Rs. 3,44,64,222/- u/s. 68 towards unexplained cash credits

SAMIR KUMAR PAIKARAY,KHURDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KHURDA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 382/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Samir Kumar Paikaray,………….………….,…Appellant Sriram Nagar, Khurdha, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha [Pan:Ahcpp4275D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Khurda Ward, Khurda, Dist. Khurda-752022, Odisha Appearances By: Shri K.K. Bal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 03, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 30, 2025 O R D E R

unexplained cash credit under section 68 representing deposit of SBN (+) Addition on account Rs.41,456/- of undisclosed asset being undisclosed income (+) Disallowance

SURENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,NUAPADA vs. ITO, BHAWANIPATNA WARD, BHAWANIPATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year :2011-12

unexplained transaction in cash book to the tune of Rs.64,44,354/- on this account for the A.Y. 2011-12 based on the additional submission/explanation produced by the assessee in violation of Rule 46A. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO towards

SAHABAJ KHAN,BHADRAK vs. ITO BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 Sahabaj Khan, Bhadrak Egg Sahabaj Khan, Bhadrak Egg Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Trader, Fish Market, Kacheri Trader, Fish Market, Kacheri Ward, Charampa, Bhadrak. Ward, Charampa, Bhadrak. Bazar, Bhadrak Bazar, Bhadrak Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aqgpk 1248 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Digant Das, Digant Das, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr

disallowance of Rs.1,15,76,500/- towards unexplained cash credit. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition

GANESH MILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KARANJIA,MAYURBHANJ,ODISHA vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BALESWAR CIRCLE,BALESWAR

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

unexplained cash credit which is liable to be deleted. 2. That, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts in circumstances in confirming the adhoc disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. DIVAKAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for

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

unexplained cash credit in the form of share application when the existence, credit worthiness and genuineness of the share holders was not proved. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in deleting the difference in sundry creditors balance of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was based on verification of balance when

SMT. SANJUKTA PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance 1 Unexplained 62,05,000/- 1. Learned CIT (A) has rejected the investment appellant's claim basing on the statement U/s.69ofthel.T of Sri. Sarbeswar Sahu (M.D) of the Act 1961. Bhulaxmi Realcon Private Limited (Purchaser of land) who has categorically stated before the AO that he has not given any cash to the appellant. 2. Learned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , SECOND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, AINTHAPALI vs. SHIVA CEMENT LIMITED, ROURKELA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the COs of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shrirajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and of ₹11,76,896/- by way of disallowance u/s 40a(i)(a) of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,SECOND FLOOR vs. SHIVA CEMENT LIMITED, ROURKELA, SUNDARGARH

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the COs of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shrirajesh Kumar, Am

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and of ₹11,76,896/- by way of disallowance u/s 40a(i)(a) of the Income

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. RAJDHANI SYSTEMS & ESTATES (P) LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.232&233/Ctk/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar Vs. Rajdhani Systems &Estates (P) Ltd., A/170, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr 8271 L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.253&254/Ctk/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-2008 & 2008-2009) Rajdhani Systems &Estates Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), (P) Ltd., A/170, Sahid Bhubaneswar Nagar, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabcr 8271 L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.D.Ojha, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar All Dated 01.02.2012 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. Since The Issue & Facts Involved In These Appeals Are Interconnected, Therefore, They Are Being Heard & Disposed Off Together As Under.

unexplained cash credit. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that he called for remand report from the AO, who submitted as under :- 3 Rajdhani Systems & Estates (P) Ltd. The AO during the remand proceedings has examined the 29.6 issue of advance from customers in detail as narrated above and has given the report quoted above in which