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

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

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

148, 149, 192, 604, 605, 606, 651, 674, 866 of 2016,\nare all matters where reassessment proceedings are initiated under\nthe proviso to Section 147 of the Act, since four years have already\nexpired from the end of the relevant assessment years in all these\ncases. The distinguishing feature of this group of petitions, however,\nis that there

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

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

148, 149, 192, 604, 605, 606, 651, 674, 866 of 2016,\nare all matters where reassessment proceedings are initiated under\nthe proviso to Section 147 of the Act, since four years have already\nexpired from the end of the relevant assessment years in all these\ncases. The distinguishing feature of this group of petitions, however,\nis that there

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/-

148/-. The CIT(A) has also confirmed the additions made u/s.43B and u/s.36(1)(v) of the Act, respectively. Accordingly, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Now, the assessee is further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the additions confirmed by the CIT(A). 5 6. Ld. AR before us filed his written

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

148(1) of the Act is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been a service of notice which is a condition precedent to making an order of assessment. The Supreme Court further held that the requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued and that service under

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

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

capital gains computed by the assessee was recalculated in the assessment order without issuing a fresh notice under section 148 of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following observations of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways India Ltd [2011] 321 ITR 236 (Bom.): "16 Section 147 has this effect that

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

capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4,28,44,600 on which the income was recognised under the completed contract method, which had been accounted for in the financial statements of the assessee and also discharge the due tax liability, therefore the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 is liable

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

capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4,28,44,600 on which the income was recognised under the completed contract method, which had been accounted for in the financial statements of the assessee and also discharge the due tax liability, therefore the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 is liable

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

capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4,28,44,600 on which the income was recognised under the completed contract method, which had been accounted for in the financial statements of the assessee and also discharge the due tax liability, therefore the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 is liable

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

capital gain whereas the assessee is a Real Estate developer and registered the flats valued at Rs.4,28,44,600 on which the income was recognised under the completed contract method, which had been accounted for in the financial statements of the assessee and also discharge the due tax liability, therefore the additions of Rs.5,56,94,020 is liable

ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

1. For that the order of assessment dated 18.3.2013 as well as the order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar dated 23.2.2015 are void, abinitio, in view of the jurisdictional error since at the time of Development agreement for development of the property, no transfer arises giving rise to any Transfer of Property U/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

1. For that the order of assessment dated 18.3.2013 as well as the order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar dated 23.2.2015 are void, abinitio, in view of the jurisdictional error since at the time of Development agreement for development of the property, no transfer arises giving rise to any Transfer of Property U/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property

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

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

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)

capital gains. Accordingly, the JAO on the basis of CRIU/VRU data in the record, has reopened the case as the assessee has purchased and sold properties not on behalf of companies to the tune of Rs.56,64,000/- & Rs.18,98,000/-, respectively and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee. It was submission that in the appeal before

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