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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom. HC) 3. Swati Luthra vs. ITO (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Tri.) 4. Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO (2018) 100 taxmann.com 172 (Mumbai Tri.) 5. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO in ITANo.196/CTK/2018(Tribunal Cuttack) 6. S.K. Agarwal vs. ITO ITANo.197/CTK/2018 (Tribunal Cuttack) 7. Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT ITANo.1236/Kol/2017(Tribunal Kolkata) 17. We have heard rival contentions

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

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that initial onus is on person who substantially asserts a claim. If the onus is discharged by him and a case is made out, the onus shifts on to deponent. It is pertinent to mention here that the phrase "burden of proof" is used in two distinct meanings

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

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections [54

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

Capital Gains of Rs.4,55,26,088/-, as 'Business income' by the lower authorities is unjustified, arbitrary, contrary to facts, erroneous and bad in law. 7. Non deduction of credit amount under Provision for Leave Encashment' disallowed in past assessment years u/s.43B(f) of the Act- Rs. 11,31,24,984/- a. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

Capital Gains of Rs.4,55,26,088/-, as 'Business income' by the lower authorities is unjustified, arbitrary, contrary to facts, erroneous and bad in law. 7. Non deduction of credit amount under Provision for Leave Encashment' disallowed in past assessment years u/s.43B(f) of the Act- Rs. 11,31,24,984/- a. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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 of Rs.2,00,53,528/- on sale of lands was exempt (question-1 on page-5 of the paper book furnished by the appellant). Similarly the A.O. asked the appellant to justify her claim in respect of deduction u/s.48 against sale of flat with corroborative evidences (question-3 on page-5 of the paper book furnished

ITO, WARD-3(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. GAYA SANTARA, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09

capital gains in respect of flat No.101 u/s.54F of the Act. Therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to allow exemption u/s.54F of the Act in respect of one flat No.101. 14. We find that the assessment year under appeal is Assessment year 2008-09. According to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. K.G.Rukminiamm

SATYARANJAN CHAND,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Satyaranjan Satyaranjan Chand, Chand, Plot Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of 3Rd No.Ga-722, 722, 3 Floor, Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Kalinga Nagar, K Kalinga Nagar, K-3-B, Po: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aajpc 7891 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawal Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 /11/2023 O R D E R

section 64(1)(iv) will not operate to nullify gift and would operate only to club income in the hands of donor assessee. 14. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that the assessee is the owner of only one property i.e. JPH-03, Central Park, Sector 4, having 50% of share as per conveyance deed available