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. 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. 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. SITANSU SEKHAR 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. 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

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

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) ..

1) of the Act. It is submitted that the Finance Act, 2001 made an amendment to section 43B of the Act by inserting clause (f) in the said section, whereby leave encashment was also included in the scope of section 43B However, the validity of the aforesaid amendment was challenged before the Hon‘ble Calcutta High Court in the case

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

gains of business or profession",— (a) in the case of any assessee— (i) any interest (not being interest on a loan issued for public subscription before the 1st day of April, 1938), royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act, which is payable,— (A) outside India; or (B)(in India to a non-resident, not being

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

1)J Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections [54

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

1), Meerut ITA No. 3809, 3810/DEL/2018. „...regarding the statement of Sh. Jai Kishan Poddar the assessee has only stated that in the statement there is no specific link with the claim of exemption in respect of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 22,78,172/- u/s. 10(38) by him. He has not stated a thing with respect

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 115JB of the Act at Rs.619,50,19,389/- and the return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) were issued. In compliance, the AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed written submissions and the Assessing Officer

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 115JB of the Act at Rs.619,50,19,389/- and the return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s.143(2) & 142(1) were issued. In compliance, the AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed written submissions and the Assessing Officer

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

Capital Plus Reserve & Surplus). (Rs.). 2010-11.(A.Y.2011-12) 39,43,35,181/- 44,27,51,185/- (6.2). Thus, it is presumed that the investment has been made by the assessee out of its own interest funds without utilizing the borrowed money. Accordingly there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest expense. In holding so we find support and guidance

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