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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

MUKUNDA PRASAD MISRA,CUTTACK, ODISHA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXC, CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK, ODISHA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.281/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mukund Prasad Mishra, Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Plot No.Hg-821/822, Cda, Sec-10 Cuttack-753014 Pan No. :Adfpm 1834 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27.06.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053972764(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Is A Retired Judicial Officer. The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year Declaring Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.1,51,156/- & The Total Income Of Rs.10,25,280/-. It Was The Submission That During The Relevant Assessment Year The Assessee Has Sold Two Properties One Being A Land At Bhubaneswar, Khurda For Rs.50 Lakhs & Another Being A Flat At Bidanasi, Cuttack For Rs.45,00,000/-. It Was The Submission That On The Sale Of The Properties The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S.54Ec Of The Act & Also Deduction On Account Of His Deposit In The Capital Gains Account Scheme Of 1988 With State Bank Of India. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Ao Held That The Assessee Having Not Invested The Entire

200/-. It was the submission that thus the assessee having generated a total capital gains of Rs.74,17,156/- on the sale of two capital assets and the assessee having invested Rs.50 lakhs u/s.54EC NHAI bonds and the balance having been 3 deposited to an extent of Rs.22,66,000/- in the capital gain account scheme of 1988 with

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/-

capital funds for improvement of the financial strength of Bank, "Dhan Laxmi Deposit Scheme" was started. The persons engaged for collection under the said DLDS Scheme are no other than the members, of the co-operative society only and not outsiders. Hence payment of remuneration to the collecting persons called as collection agents will not attract the provision of Section

M/S. NIYATI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-2007

200 7 had sold those shares on 23.11.2005 for Rs. 2,94,050/- @ Rs. 294.50 per share through a broker Ashok Kumar Kayan reporting a gain of 4430%. Again such artificial gain is only through manipulation. 4.9 Regarding the 4 alleged company share holders, it seen from their returns of income that M/s. Vindya Agencies (P) Ltd. has declared

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

Capital Goods which is not routed through the Profit and Loss Account. (8) In regards to the applicability of the section 195 relating to import purchases and disallowances of the same in the pretext of non deduction of tax at source from, the remittances under Sec 40(a)(1), our submission is stated below alongwith relevant case laws

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

section 145 (3) and order of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd(supra), he cannot proceed further without rejecting Books of Account to make any addition to the profit derived, by taking a provisional costing figure, submitted by the appellant herself before the IBM. 20. We note that the assessee being raising the Iron Ore from

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

section 145 (3) and order of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd(supra), he cannot proceed further without rejecting Books of Account to make any addition to the profit derived, by taking a provisional costing figure, submitted by the appellant herself before the IBM. 20. We note that the assessee being raising the Iron Ore from

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

200/- per ton which means that the cost of production at orient mine no. 4 is more than the NRV. The accounting policy of the assessee during the FY 1996-97 in respect of valuation of coal referred at para 7 .4 of Audited accounts and the effect of change at para 4.2 (ii) is a furnished. Further, circular

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

capital gains, if any, from disposal of assets as per Government financial guideline and rules of Government of Maharashtra. The exemption in the CBDT notification dt. 29th March, 2016 is valid for financial years 2015-16 to 2018-19. Considering the facts that the assessee-Board is under complete superintendence, and control of the State Government financially as well