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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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) ..

133,19,92,230/- u/s.32(i)(iia) of the Act which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer erroneously and hence sustenance thereof is incorrect, unjustified, arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to facts and bad in law. 11. Treatment of: a. Long term Capital Gains Rs. 63,57,13,500/- h. Short term Capital Gains Rs. 1,89,869/- Totaling

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

M/S. NIYATI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-2007

6 Ltd. Total Long 1343698 term capital gain Ltd. It is seen that the appellant has claimed capital gain of 4410% in the case of Sudama Trading & Investment Ltd and 10435%, in the case of Shiv Om Investment Ltd in nearly one year. Both of these companies are non- descript companies and the sale rates have been pushed through manipulation

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

6. That the Ld. C.I,T.(Appeals-1, Bhubaneswar should not have accepted the A.O,s estimation of income from capital-gains and house property ITA No. 396/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year :20 07- 08 on hypothetical manner by citing five comparable sale-deed executed by the builder during Assessment year 2009-10 but not during the year

SBI EMPLOYEES HOUSING BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 148 issued by the learned DCIT, Cirlce- 2(1), Bhubaneswar is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not allowing expenses of Rs.95,63,963/- while computing the total income at Rs.34,35,000/- under capital gains. 4. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

gains from business. The CIT(A) on perusal of Annual reports & account of the assessee for the financial year 2009-2010, observed that the assessee has shown profit on sale of assets of Rs.1589.25 lakhs under the head “other income” as per Schedule-4 to P&L account and claimed as loss on sale/discarded assets of Rs.33.11 lakhs. Therefore

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

capital gains on account of sale of property and he imposed penalty which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. It was held by Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court that the contention that the penalty was liable to be set aside on account of the Commissioner (Appeals) describing the action of the assessee as "showing