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

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

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

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA, BHUBANESWAR

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

148 relating to the Asst. Year 2007-08, invoking the provision of Section 2(47) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and consequential assessment thereof are not only illegal but without the sanction of law and exceeding jurisdiction. 3. For that in absence of any consideration accrued or received to the assessee at the time of entering into the Development Agreement

ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

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

148 relating to the Asst. Year 2007-08, invoking the provision of Section 2(47) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and consequential assessment thereof are not only illegal but without the sanction of law and exceeding jurisdiction. 3. For that in absence of any consideration accrued or received to the assessee at the time of entering into the Development Agreement

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 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,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 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

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ORISSA COMPUTER APPLICATION CENTRE, BHUBANESWAR

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

148 of the I.T Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2007. The above notice was served on the assessee on 28.03.2007. No return was filed by the assessee in compliance to the said notice. Therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144/147 of the I.T Act, 1961 on 31.12.2007 determining total at Rs.1,63,00,580/- being the surplus of income over

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

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

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

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

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