M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

gain or benefit of the persons specified in section 13(3) of the Act or for any other business enterprise or entity which comes within scope of this said provision. Ld. AR also drew our attention towards written submissions and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly observed that if the assessee is extending loan then Section

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

13,500/- and short-term capital gain amounting to Rs.1,89,869/-. The said amounts of capital gain income have been charged to tax by the assessee company in its Computation of Income under the head capital gain. ITA Nos.339&340/CTK/16 &376/CTK/14 & CO.01/CTK/15&25/CTK/16 The AO, as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have alleged that the income earned

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SMT. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

2,000 06.06.2014 4,96,000 9.000 08.08.2014 22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the directions

2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957)" 12. From the bare reading of all these three sections it may be seen that section 43CA deals with the valuation of all the assets other than capital assets and other provisions of section 50C are applicable. Section 55A can be invoked where estimation of fair market value

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 u/s.68 and should have been accepted as income from Long Term Capital Gains and should have been treated as exempt income u/s.10(38). 4. For that under the facts

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

gainfully rely upon the decision of the binding decision of the jurisdictional Orissa High Court in the case of “Siksha O Anusadhan Vs. CIT[2011} 336 ITR 112 (Orissa. HC)’. In the decided case question came for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court was as under: “2.(iii). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual, who is deriving income from capital gains from purchase and sale of shares. It was the submission that the assessee has purchased 1 lakh shares of M/s Panchshul Marketing Ltd. on 29.03.2012 @Rs.1/- per share. It was the submission that in view of the decision

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

section 48, which requires that consideration has to be received or accrued and the assessee having not been received the consideration, the mode of computation of capital gains fails and consequently, there can be no levy of capital gains on the assessee. It was the further submission that there is no real income received by the assessee