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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) ..

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

54, 54B, [[54D, [54E, [54EA, 54EB,J 54F [, 54G and 54HJJJJJ, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Mode of computation. 48. The income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value

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

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

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

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

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