RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

2 & 3 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations 19.9 We, therefore, respectfully following the above judicial precedence and discussion made hereinabove are satisfied that the assessee has fulfilled necessary conditions to claim the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for the Long Term Capital Gain earned from sale of equity shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance

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

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

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, 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

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

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

SURESH KUMAR DIVAKAR,SAMBALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), , SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains assessable on presumptive basis. However, the assessee, m the course of assessment proceedings m a submission made on 10-11-2014 vide covering letter dated 30-10- 3 2014 had submitted that income from business of supply of building materials was determined on presumptive basis u/s.44AD since no proper books of accounts were maintained by it . No adverse inference

SHRI SATYENDRA PRASAD,MAYURBHANJ vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year :2016-17 Shri Shri Satyendra Satyendra Prasad, Prasad, Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Kachery Road, Baripada. Kachery Road, Baripada. Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle, Circle, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aelpp6065 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Sahoo, Adv , Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024

148 to the assessee. 4) That the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- under the head short term capital gain made by the learned AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC is erroneous, illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case liable to be annulled.” 4. It was submitted by ld AR that