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

2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.61,59,697/-. 19.4 All the above details of purchase and sales were placed before

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

2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.61,59,697/-. 19.4 All the above details of purchase and sales were placed before

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

2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.61,59,697/-. 19.4 All the above details of purchase and sales were placed before

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

2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.61,59,697/-. 19.4 All the above details of purchase and sales were placed before

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

2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.61,59,697/-. 19.4 All the above details of purchase and sales were placed before

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

2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.61,59,697/-. 19.4 All the above details of purchase and sales were placed before

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

2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.61,59,697/-. 19.4 All the above details of purchase and sales were placed before

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

2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.61,59,697/-. 19.4 All the above details of purchase and sales were placed before

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

2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.61,59,697/-. 19.4 All the above details of purchase and sales were placed before

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

2,49,000 7,000 07.10.2014 17,43,000 3,000 07.11.2014 7,41,000 25,000 62,42,000 19.3 After deduction the cost price of Rs.50,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.61,59,697/-. 19.4 All the above details of purchase and sales were placed before

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) ..

Section 43B of the Act disallowed by the AO dealt by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‘s own case and matter is pending before the Hon‘ble High Court. We rely on the order of ITAT in ITA Nos.196&91/CTK/2010, order dated 29.06.2012, para 16 to 23 at pages 10 to 13. The relevant observations

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

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 45 Capital gain is levied when there is transfer of Capital Asset and consideration is received or accrued by virtue of such transfer. However, in the instant case even though the Capital Asset has been transferred but consideration was neither received nor accrued to the assessee. Hence, the Income is not taxable under Capital gain as consideration never received

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

41,000/- was made by him. 4. On appeal before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted as under: “(1) The Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of fertilizers. (2) For manufacture of fertilizers, the Company mostly imports raw materialsunder CFR (Cost + Freight) basis and makes the payment for such supply of materials. The Company's Transfer

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

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

41 sellers for an amount of Rs.1,53,44,000/- on 22.07.2010. The registration fee/stamp duty of Rs.3,07,194/- was paid on said purchase of land. It is not understood as to how the registration fee/stamp duty of Rs.10,74,394/- was claimed by the appellant in her computation of capital gains. ii.) The abovementioned land was sold

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), SAMBALPUR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.174/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Podar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

gains for temporary purposes. It must be a bonafide change modified by business consideration (1987) 167 ITR 742(AII) New Vactoria Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT TC IR 231. The recognised method of accounting followed regularly and necessarily result in proper computation of the assessee's real income even if one regular method of accounting is substituted by another regular

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

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

capital gains figure in the wrong column of the IT return, which had admittedly triggered this dispute. In our considered opinion, the error committed by the assessee is only a clerical error for which the assessee cannot be fastened with this huge tax liability. We find that the id CITA had duly examined the entire documents in this regard such