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

section 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

section 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

section 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

section 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

section 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

section 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

section 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

section 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

section 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

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

section 139(5), namely, 31/03/2015. Now, in the original return for AY.- 2014-15, the assessee had made a claim u/s. 10(38) on the long term capital gains earned on the sale of shares. The AO rejected this claim by holding that these receipts constituted accommodation entries taken by the assessee from certain Kolkata based companies. However, on perusal

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

capital gains, if any, from disposal of assets as per Government financial guideline and rules of Government of Maharashtra. The exemption in the CBDT notification dt. 29th March, 2016 is valid for financial years 2015-16 to 2018-19. Considering the facts that the assessee-Board is under complete superintendence, and control of the State Government financially as well

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

capital funds for improvement of the financial strength of Bank, "Dhan Laxmi Deposit Scheme" was started. The persons engaged for collection under the said DLDS Scheme are no other than the members, of the co-operative society only and not outsiders. Hence payment of remuneration to the collecting persons called as collection agents will not attract the provision of Section

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

1), Meerut ITA No. 3809, 3810/DEL/2018. „...regarding the statement of Sh. Jai Kishan Poddar the assessee has only stated that in the statement there is no specific link with the claim of exemption in respect of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 22,78,172/- u/s. 10(38) by him. He has not stated a thing with respect

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

1,00,000 shares to his wife Smt. Mridulla Gupta. The balance 7,67,500 shares were sold by the assessee on the floor of BSE through his broker Motilal Oswal Securities Limited for a consideration of Rs. 6,06,49,780/-. Backed by the substantial documentary evidence filed by the assessee which beyond doubt substantiates the genuineness

MR. MANOJ KUMAR NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

139(5) of the I.T. Act and the CIT is also justified in confirming the view of the learned Assessing Officer.‖ 14. On perusal of the above decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, it is clear that the assessment in the above case was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on the basis of original return filed u/s.139

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

section 50C is not applicable. 2. Without prejudice to above, the computation of capital gain done by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is incorrect, since while calculating the capital gain on sale of land to M/s Vedbhumi Builders, the cost of acquisition of different land is deducted from the sale price. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

139 (Del.) (HC) ITA No.534 & 510/JP/2017. In this case the amount paid to acquire network and the facilities was held to be Intangible Asset. A photocopy of the judgment is enclosed at Page No.161-169 of the P/B-VOl-I1. 2.13.6 The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 479 held that