JAY KISHORE CHOUBEY,RAIRANGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

reopening the assessment we find that the Assessing Officer has taken due note of the capital gains offered by the assessee

SUDHANSU SEKHAR RAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2007-08

reopening order assessment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 in the 'Individual status as the IHUF's alleged income from capital-gains

SATISH KUMAR GARG,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-5, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2014-15 Satish Satish Kumar Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Income Tax Officer, Ward Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Gurudwara, Rourkela Gurudwara, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No. . (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2 2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 26.12.2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Sambalpur/10380/2016 Sambalpur/10380/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

capital gain from the trading in scripts NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. It was the the trading in scripts NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. It was the the trading in scripts NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. It was the submission that the assessee had purchased 1000 shares of NCL Research submission that the assessee had purchased 1000 shares

PRAKASH AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2014-15 Satish Satish Kumar Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Income Tax Officer, Ward Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Gurudwara, Rourkela Gurudwara, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No. . (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2 2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 26.12.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Sambalpur/10380/2016 Sambalpur/10380/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

capital gain from the trading in scripts NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. It was the the trading in scripts NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. It was the the trading in scripts NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. It was the submission that the assessee had purchased 1000 shares of NCL Research submission that the assessee had purchased 1000 shares

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

gain is estimated to Rs. 4,12,37,845/- after deducting indexed cost of acquisition. Therefore, Ld. AO has reason to believe that the capital of Rs. 4,12,37,845/- has escaped assessment. Hence, case was reopened

SURESH KUMAR DIVAKAR,SAMBALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), , SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains assessable on presumptive basis. However, the assessee, m the course of assessment proceedings m a submission made on 10-11-2014 vide covering letter dated 30-10- 3 2014 had submitted that income from business of supply of building materials was determined on presumptive basis u/s.44AD since no proper books of accounts were maintained by it . No adverse inference

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiam/S Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., Omc House, Post Box No.34, Bhubaneswar-01 Pan No.Aaaco 3324 L …………….. Assessee Versus Acit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar ………………Revenue

capital gain or casual income was also not addressed by the Revenue. In the light of the same, in the facts of the case, we find that the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act on May 17,2000. 11. Original record was produced before us by Shri Alok Sharma. The Assessing Officer

GANESH KUMAR SHARMA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-1, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal as well as on merits also

reopened u/s.148 of the Act by issue of notice u/s.31.03.2021 and consequently the proceedings were completed vide order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act, wherein the addition of Rs.43,82,162/- has been made on account of long term capital gain by treating the same as undisclosed income u/s.68 of the Act. In first appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. KALINGA POWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2007-2008) Dcit, Cir-1(1), Bhubaneswar Vs. M/S Kalinga Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd., M-10, Samanta Vihar, Nalco Square, Near Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneswar-751017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack 7224 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh,Citdr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Berhampur (Camp: Bhubaneswar), Dated 21.03.2014, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0226/10-11(Bbs), U/S.143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2007-2008, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.7,14,20,259/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Advance Against Share Capital. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, Neither Any Adjournment Application Was Placed On Record By The Assessee, Therefore, The Bench Deem It Fit Dispose Off The 2 Appeal On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & The Submissions

capital gains and filed the return of income electronically for the assessment year 2008-09 on 30.11.2007 with total income of Rs.5,54,788/- and the return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO had reason to believe that income has escapement assessment and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 25.1.2010 and the reasons

SRI NIHAR RANJAN BEHERA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

reopening as well as the impugned assessment order has been incorrectly made by Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201 0 the Ld. A.O, therefore unsustainable and impermissible under law.” 3. No submissions were advanced by ld A.R. of the assessee, therefore, this ground is dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. Ground Nos.2 & 3 read as under: 2. For that despite

BISWAJIT BEHERA,BHUBANESWAR vs. I.T.O. WARD-4(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanassessment Year: 2012-2013 Biswajit Behera, 10, Janpath Satya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Appellant Respondent Pan No.Aeppb 7779 G Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 4.1.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 4.1.2024 Order

capital gains derived on the purchase and sale of shares of BSR Finance & Constructions Ltd. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld CIT(A) at page 42 para 7.5 of his order mentions that the assessee has not disputed the recording of the reasons by the Assessing Officer and there was no evidence available to substantiate the claim

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

reopening of the assessment beyond four years after obtaining the approval of the Ld. Addl. CIT is contrary to the provisions of the law and therefore the reassessment proceeding is bad in law, not sustainable and liable to be quashed. 2. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed an error of law in dismissing the ground of appeal

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,NFAC,DELHI, NFAC DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

reopening of the assessment beyond four years after obtaining the approval of the Ld. Addl. CIT is contrary to the provisions of the law and therefore the reassessment proceeding is bad in law, not sustainable and liable to be quashed. 2. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed an error of law in dismissing the ground of appeal

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

reopening of the assessment beyond four years after obtaining the approval of the Ld. Addl. CIT is contrary to the provisions of the law and therefore the reassessment proceeding is bad in law, not sustainable and liable to be quashed. 2. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed an error of law in dismissing the ground of appeal

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

reopening of the assessment beyond four years after obtaining the approval of the Ld. Addl. CIT is contrary to the provisions of the law and therefore the reassessment proceeding is bad in law, not sustainable and liable to be quashed. 2. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed an error of law in dismissing the ground of appeal

SUDHIR KUMAR PATEL,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.29 & 30/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sudhir Kumar Patel, Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Co: Umiya Saw Mill, Bhubaneswar Cuttack Road, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar-751006 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Abmpp 6090 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

capital asset at a price at his choice and also constitute unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the assessee. Therefore the assessment is illegal and liable to be quashed. 6. For that the assessment has been completed without granting sufficient opportunity for filing the details in support of the claim. Therefore there is gross violation of principles of natural

SUDHIR KUMAR PATEL,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.29 & 30/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Sudhir Kumar Patel, Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Co: Umiya Saw Mill, Bhubaneswar Cuttack Road, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar-751006 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Abmpp 6090 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

capital asset at a price at his choice and also constitute unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the assessee. Therefore the assessment is illegal and liable to be quashed. 6. For that the assessment has been completed without granting sufficient opportunity for filing the details in support of the claim. Therefore there is gross violation of principles of natural

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

Capital Plus Reserve & Surplus). (Rs.). 2010-11.(A.Y.2011-12) 39,43,35,181/- 44,27,51,185/- (6.2). Thus, it is presumed that the investment has been made by the assessee out of its own interest funds without utilizing the borrowed money. Accordingly there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest expense. In holding so we find support and guidance

RASHMI RANJAN BEURA,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

assessment year under consideration and further filed the revised return on 27.08.2018 declaring total income at Rs.10,54,800/- and this return does not disclose any income from capital gains. Accordingly, the JAO on the basis of CRIU/VRU data in the record, has reopened