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

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

24. 5. The Id.AR further submitted that besides assessee's own case in preceding years, the issue of long term capital gain has been decided by this bench of ITAT in case of other assessee’s also which orders have been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The assessee has filed a copy

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) ..

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. a. That

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

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

24, section 34- AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16-A of that Act. Explanation 1-For the purposes of this section

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

24. We also find that while analyzing sale of shares of similar scrip of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd and claim of exemption of long term capital gains u/s10(38), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Anraj Hiralal Shah (HUF) vs ITO (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee's claim of exemption under section

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

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

Section 14A of the Act and this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 23. Ground No.6 relates to treatment of short term and long term capital gain. The AO has treated the short-term and long-term capital gain earned by the assessee as business income of the assessee. The CIT(A) has affirmed the action

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

Section 14A of the Act and this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 23. Ground No.6 relates to treatment of short term and long term capital gain. The AO has treated the short-term and long-term capital gain earned by the assessee as business income of the assessee. The CIT(A) has affirmed the action

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं/Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.110/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. National Aluminium Company 1(2), Bhubaneswar Limited, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.30/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.110/Ctk/2018) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 21.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Co No.30/Ctk/2018

section 14A read with Rule 8D and disallowed the expenditure as per formula provided CO No.30/CTK/2018 under rule 8D. The assessee is stated to have made no fresh investments out of borrowed funds. The Assessing Officer appears to have calculated the disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) observing that administrative expenses cannot be denied to earn exempt income