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, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital\nexpenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) lead out or\nexpended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or\nprofession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under\nthe head \"Profit and gains

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

37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital\nexpenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) lead out or\nexpended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or\nprofession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under\nthe head \"Profit and gains

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

37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital\nexpenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) lead out or\nexpended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or\nprofession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under\nthe head \"Profit and gains

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

37(1): Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature\ndescribed in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital\nexpenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) lead out or\nexpended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or\nprofession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under\nthe head \"Profit and gains

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.

37) of the I,T.Act 1961. 4. For that even otherwise the learned CIT (Appeal) NFAC is grossly erred in dwelling upon some inapplicable & in appropriate judicial pronouncements for drawing the conclusion that the compensation from Govt of Odisha on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land used for agricultural purpose as taxable Long Term Capital Gain. 5. For that the order

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

37,52,643/-. It is not in dispute that the said shares were held for more than 12 months prior to the date of its sale and hence the resultant gains thereon would be Long Term Capital Gains. It is not in dispute that the said sale of shares had duly suffered STT and had been routed through recognized stock

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

37,52,643/-. It is not in dispute that the said shares were held for more than 12 months prior to the date of its sale and hence the resultant gains thereon would be Long Term Capital Gains. It is not in dispute that the said sale of shares had duly suffered STT and had been routed through recognized stock

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

37,52,643/-. It is not in dispute that the said shares were held for more than 12 months prior to the date of its sale and hence the resultant gains thereon would be Long Term Capital Gains. It is not in dispute that the said sale of shares had duly suffered STT and had been routed through recognized stock

NIRMALA CHHOTRAY,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, ROURKELA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.254/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Nirmala Chhotray, Deogaon, Vs Ito, Ward-5, Rourkela Rourkela, Sundergarh 769004 Pan No. : Aarpc 6461 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K. Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/092025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025

37,000/-, resulting into net capital gain of Rs.51,39,000/-. It was also the submission that the assesee has also made trading in CCL International Ltd. but no share trading details in respect of that script has been shown by the assesee before the AO. The assessee had subsequently sold the shares of Kailash Auto and had earned

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 National National Aluminium Aluminium Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(2), Company Limited., Nalco Company Limited., Nalco Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhawan, Bhawan, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacn 7449 M (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca & Shri P. Venugopal Rao, Ca Venugopal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

37 of the Act.” He further drew our attention to pages 224 & 225, which were details of the amount of Rs.123.13 crores towards tax duty and cess which reads as follows: “Before the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(2),Bhubaneswar. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED –Asst.Year 016-17 7. Pease furnish details of Rs.13,13,00,000/- towards

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

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 as administratively

MRUTYUNJAY ROUT,BALASORE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE BALASORE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrutyunjay Rout, Prop. M/S. Rout, Prop. M/S. Vs. Acit, Acit, Balasore Balasore Circle, Circle, Sopny Brothers, Bampada, Sopny Brothers, Bampada, Balasore Chhanpur, Balasore Chhanpur, Balasore Pan/Gir No. .Aavpr 0830 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv : Shri Natabar Panda, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2 2024 O R D E R

37 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”)? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in its order/ direction to exclude the profit on sale of two estates from computing book profit for the purpose of Section 115JB as agricultural income?; and, whether rubber income being partially taxable should not capital gain

GEETIRANJAN MOHANTY,KALYANI NAGAR, CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK., CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2022-2023 2023 Geeti Ranjan Mohanty, At Geeti Ranjan Mohanty, At- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kalyani Kalyani Nagar, Nagar, 1(1), Cuttack 1(1), Cuttack Madhupatana, Cuttack Madhupatana, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Abcpm 1532 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Adv K.K.Bal, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 5/9/ /2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 5/9 /9/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

37 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”)? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in its order/ direction to exclude the profit on sale of two estates from computing book profit for the purpose of Section 115JB as agricultural income?; and, whether rubber income being partially taxable should not capital gain

RANJEET KUMAR SETH,KULAD, KULAD NALCO NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), BHUBANESWAR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RAJSWA VIHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ranjeet Kumar Seth, Kulad, Ranjeet Kumar Seth, Kulad, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(1), Dcit, Circle 4(1), Nalco Nagar, Angul. Nalco Nagar, Angul. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Ahups 3052 M (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C.Jena, Ca K.C.Jena, Ca Revenue By Ue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/8 8/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/8 /8/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

37 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”)? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in its order/ direction to exclude the profit on sale of two estates from computing book profit for the purpose of Section 115JB as agricultural income?; and, whether rubber income being partially taxable should not capital gain

AKBARI CONTINENTAL PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.364/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) वष"

37 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”)? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in its order/ direction to exclude the profit on sale of two estates from computing book profit for the purpose of Section 115JB as agricultural income?; and, whether 8 rubber income being partially taxable should not capital gain

ABHIMANYU SAHU,BUXIPALLI vs. PCIT-1,, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

37(1) of the Act, since the expenditure is capital in nature. Assessee debited an amount of Rs. 15,83,130/- in its P&L account towards provision for doubtful debts. This being provision for diminution in value of trade receivables in the balance sheet, had to be added to profit for computation of book profit. This has resulted

KENDRAPARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,KENDRAPADA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.163/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Pr.Cit, Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara-754211 Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Dated 24.03.2020, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026884702(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 8 Days. The Assessee Through Its Secretary Has Filed An Application Dated 13.07.2020 Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, To Which Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object. In View Of The Above, Delay Of 8 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Heard Finally. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.11.2017. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was A Limited Scrutiny

37(1) of the Act, since the expenditure is capital in nature. Assessee debited an amount of Rs. 15,83,130/- in its P&L account towards provision for doubtful debts. This being provision for diminution in value of trade receivables in the balance sheet, had to be added to profit for computation of book profit. This has resulted