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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.339 & 340/Ctk/2016 Dcit, Corporate Circle1(2)/ Vs. National Aluminium Company Acit, Circle-2(2), Limited, Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.352 & 353/Ctk/2016 & Ita No.374/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11, 2012-13 & 2011-12) National Aluminium Company Vs. Jcit Range-2/ Limited, Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2) Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.01/Ctk/2015 & 25/Ctk/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.376/Ctk/14 & Ita No.340/Ctk/2016) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012 & 2012-2013) National Aluminium Company Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2)/ Limited, Dcit, Corporate Circle- Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Capital Gains of Rs. 1,89,869/-, as 'Business income' by the learned AO is unjustified, arbitrary, contrary to facts, erroneous and bad in law. 12. Levy of Interest o/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act - Rs. 1,53,56,380/-, Rs. 53,74,73,300, Rs. 4,09,11,235/- and Rs. 68,90,718/- respectively

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

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

iii) the land was not directly connected with any proper road when the sale was made and this fact could also be verified from the map and (iv) the land was low lying and meshy and substantial amount has to spend to 4 brought it to a habitable condition. Since the assessee was urgent need of funds therefore

SMT. PURNIMA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR. CIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Purnima Das, C/O. Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Biswajit Das, At-9, Budha Nagar, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aazpd0112 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit Passed U./S.263 Of The Act, Dated 12.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Reev5/2021-22/10540634159(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee Assisted By Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr & Ms. Simran Samal, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue Assisted By Shri Dharmashoka Panda, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is A Professor Of Mathematics At P.N.College, Khurda. The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year On 5.8.2017

capital gains. On appeal, the Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT held that there is no dispute to the fact that the property that was sold by the assessee, did not fall within clauses of section 2(14)(iii

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

gainfully rely upon the decision of the binding decision of the jurisdictional Orissa High Court in the case of “Siksha O Anusadhan Vs. CIT[2011} 336 ITR 112 (Orissa. HC)’. In the decided case question came for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court was as under: “2.(iii). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income

NETRANANDA NAYAK,PURI vs. ITO, PURI WARD, PURI

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Netrananda Netrananda Nayak, Nayak, At: At: Vs. Income Tax Officer, Puri Income Tax Officer, Puri Khandiabandha, Khandiabandha, Po: Po: Word, Puri. Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Pan/Gir No. No.Ajspn 1567 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niranjan Panda, Ca Niranjan Panda, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10186/2019-20 20 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Niranjan Niranjan Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

14) (iii) (a) & (b) of the I.T.Act 1961. 3. For that even otherwise without prejudice to the grounds taken above, learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC is grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,03,68.4801- towards Long Term Capital Gain ignoring the fact that the said amount was received as compensation from Govt of Odisha on compulsory acquisition

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. National Aluminium Company 1(2), Bhubaneswar Limited, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.211/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.10/Ctk/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.197/Ctk/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra,Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/06/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Co No.10/Ctk/2018 Bhubaneswar, Passed In It Appeal No.0511/15-16, Dated 03.02.2017 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014. 2. Since Issues In Both The Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard

14 A (2) of the Act read with Rule 8D (1) (a) of the Rules and record his satisfaction as required thereunder, the question of applying Rule 8D (2) (iii) of the Rules did not arise. The question framed in ITA 549 of 2015 is answered accordingly. We found that in the instant case the AO could not make distinction

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. National Aluminium Company 1(2), Bhubaneswar Limited, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.211/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.10/Ctk/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.197/Ctk/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2013-2014) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra,Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/06/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Co No.10/Ctk/2018 Bhubaneswar, Passed In It Appeal No.0511/15-16, Dated 03.02.2017 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014. 2. Since Issues In Both The Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard

14 A (2) of the Act read with Rule 8D (1) (a) of the Rules and record his satisfaction as required thereunder, the question of applying Rule 8D (2) (iii) of the Rules did not arise. The question framed in ITA 549 of 2015 is answered accordingly. We found that in the instant case the AO could not make distinction

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

Gain only when the following conditions are fulfilled; i) Asset should be a Capital Asset; ii) There should be a transfer; and iii) Consideration is received or accrued as a result of the transfer of Capital Asset. P a g e 12 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 In the instant case, first two conditions were met whereas the last condition