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

143(3) and an Assessment order was passed - In meantime, Supreme Court in a case of another employee of same bank passed a dictum that he was entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) on amount received under early retirement scheme - On basis of same, Assessee filed an application before Commissioner seeking to claim exemption under section 10(10C) - Commissioner

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

143(3) and an Assessment order was passed - In meantime, Supreme Court in a case of another employee of same bank passed a dictum that he was entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) on amount received under early retirement scheme - On basis of same, Assessee filed an application before Commissioner seeking to claim exemption under section 10(10C) - Commissioner

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

143(3) and an Assessment order was passed - In meantime, Supreme Court in a case of another employee of same bank passed a dictum that he was entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) on amount received under early retirement scheme - On basis of same, Assessee filed an application before Commissioner seeking to claim exemption under section 10(10C) - Commissioner

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

143(3) and an Assessment order was passed - In meantime, Supreme Court in a case of another employee of same bank passed a dictum that he was entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) on amount received under early retirement scheme - On basis of same, Assessee filed an application before Commissioner seeking to claim exemption under section 10(10C) - Commissioner

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

143(3) and an Assessment order was passed - In meantime, Supreme Court in a case of another employee of same bank passed a dictum that he was entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) on amount received under early retirement scheme - On basis of same, Assessee filed an application before Commissioner seeking to claim exemption under section 10(10C) - Commissioner

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

143(3) and an Assessment order was passed - In meantime, Supreme Court in a case of another employee of same bank passed a dictum that he was entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) on amount received under early retirement scheme - On basis of same, Assessee filed an application before Commissioner seeking to claim exemption under section 10(10C) - Commissioner

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

143(3) and an Assessment order was passed - In meantime, Supreme Court in a case of another employee of same bank passed a dictum that he was entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) on amount received under early retirement scheme - On basis of same, Assessee filed an application before Commissioner seeking to claim exemption under section 10(10C) - Commissioner

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

143(3) and an Assessment order was passed - In meantime, Supreme Court in a case of another employee of same bank passed a dictum that he was entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) on amount received under early retirement scheme - On basis of same, Assessee filed an application before Commissioner seeking to claim exemption under section 10(10C) - Commissioner

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

143(3) and an Assessment order was passed - In meantime, Supreme Court in a case of another employee of same bank passed a dictum that he was entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) on amount received under early retirement scheme - On basis of same, Assessee filed an application before Commissioner seeking to claim exemption under section 10(10C) - Commissioner

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

143(3) and an Assessment order was passed - In meantime, Supreme Court in a case of another employee of same bank passed a dictum that he was entitled to exemption under section 10(10C) on amount received under early retirement scheme - On basis of same, Assessee filed an application before Commissioner seeking to claim exemption under section 10(10C) - Commissioner

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

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

3-A) and (4) of section 23, sub- section (5) of section 24, section 34-AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.1,20,99,520/- by making various additions to the income declared by the assessee. In first appeal, Id.CIT(A) has allowed partial relief and confirmed the addition of Rs.69,39,513/- by holding the long term capital gain declared by the assessee and claimed exemption

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

143(2) of the Act having been issued by the Income-tax Officer, Range 6(2), Kanpur on 16.8.2002, it was Income-tax Officer alone who could frame the assessment subject however to the fact that that the assessment could be framed by any other officer also provided there was an order of transfer of jurisdiction over assessee's case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

143, 144, 145, 150, 165, 167, 207, 226,\n227, 777, 791 of 2016, are all cases where reassessment notices are\nissued within four years from the end of the relevant Assessment\nYears. There is no requirement or failure on the part of the assessee\nto disclose fully and truly material facts in these cases. So far as the\ninformation

KAMAL KUMAR AGARWALLA,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.58/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar Kamal Kumar Agarwalla, 87, Kharavela Nagar, Unit-Iii, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaopa 1367 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla/B.L.Agarwal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Made Against The Order Dated 20.03.2021, Passed By The Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar For Doing Of De Novo Assessment Is Not Sustainable In View Of The Fact That, The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. That, Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Wrong In Directing The Ld. Assessing Officer To Make The De Novo Assessment In View Of The Fact That The Issued With Regard To The Capital Gain Was Examined By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings By Issuing Of Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 15.12.2018 & Therefore The Revisional Order Passed U/S 263 Is Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That, The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Not Justified In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) For The Purpose Of Verification Of Introduction Of Capital Which Had Been Verified By The Ld. Assessing Officer By Issuing

143(2) for Complete Scrutiny followed by 3 more notices u/s 142(1). From the notices, queries raised and response submitted during the 9 assessment proceedings, it is evident that the AO had made enquiry regarding the issue of Capital Gain, it is also undisputed that the AO went beyond the scope of reason for selection for Limited scrutiny that

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

JAGADISH LAL GUGNANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-07

section 143(3) on 30.12.2009 determining the total income at Rs.7,36,260/-. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment found that the assessee has income from trading of shares as the proprietor of M/s. Indu Investment and also reflected the purchase and sale of shares in the profit and loss account and whereas in respect of clients, the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

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

143, 144, 145, 150, 165, 167, 207, 226,\n227, 777, 791 of 2016, are all cases where reassessment notices are\nissued within four years from the end of the relevant Assessment\nYears. There is no requirement or failure on the part of the assessee\nto disclose fully and truly material facts in these cases. So far as the\ninformation