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

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

purchase and sale of shares on the stock exchange have not been refuted by any adverse findings or material which could demonstrate involvement of the assessee or collusion with so called accommodation entry providers to obtain bogus LTCG as so alleged by the authorities below. 24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchased during the year 2013-2014 and had also accepted the short term capital gains for the assessment year 2014-2015. It was only in respect of 1 lakh shares sold by the assessee in the assessment year 2013-2014 and 25000 shares sold for the assessment year 2014-2015 that the AO treated the transaction as bogus transaction

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchased during the year 2013-2014 and had also accepted the short term capital gains for the assessment year 2014-2015. It was only in respect of 1 lakh shares sold by the assessee in the assessment year 2013-2014 and 25000 shares sold for the assessment year 2014-2015 that the AO treated the transaction as bogus transaction

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

24. 5. The Id.AR further submitted that besides assessee's own case in preceding years, the issue of long term capital gain has been decided by this bench of ITAT in case of other assessee’s also which orders have been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The assessee has filed a copy

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

purchase of shares at such a high premium. The present case is on a similar footing since the amount of loan involved is Rs.1.05 crores and Kedarnath Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. had shown income of Rs.8,61,950/- in its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. 13. It was held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus, the provision of ss 269SS and 269T are not attracted in the facts of the case. Even if they were to apply, in the facts and circumstances not invoking the provision of ss. 271D and 271E. In this view of the matter also the order of penalty under ss. 271D and 271E is cancelled... CIT Vs. Bazpur, Cooperative Sugar

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus, the provision of ss 269SS and 269T are not attracted in the facts of the case. Even if they were to apply, in the facts and circumstances not invoking the provision of ss. 271D and 271E. In this view of the matter also the order of penalty under ss. 271D and 271E is cancelled... CIT Vs. Bazpur, Cooperative Sugar