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

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

SUDHANSU SEKHAR RAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2007-08

Section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the I.T.Act, fair market value of the asset on the 1st day of April,1981 was taken as capital gain

SANDEEP KUMAR AGARWAL,JAGATPUR vs. ACIT,NFAC, DELHI, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15 Sandeep Sandeep Kumar Kumar Agarwal, Agarwal, Vs. Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack Acit, Nfac, Delhi/Cuttack C/O. Agarwal Spices & C/O. Agarwal Spices & Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Food Processors Pvt Ltd., Jagatpur. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aarpa 8064 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

55 different shares. Thus, the assessee is substantially into dealing in midcap and small cap shares. The shares of AAR Infrastructure which has been applied for and has been allotted on account of merger with CCL International increased in number but reduced in value. Admittedly, the assessee has no control over such merger. After nearly 2 years, the assessee

SHRI ANTARYAMI KAR,BALASORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.94/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Sri Antaryami Kar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Balasore, S/O-Bhagirathi Kar, District : Balasore At-Podapatna, Oupada, Dist: Balasore-759049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Asvpk 7004 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 23.01.2019 Passed In First Appeal No.0328/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:- 1. For That, The Impugned Order Of Reassessment So Passed By The Learned A.O. Is Premature, Without Jurisdiction & Without The Authority Of Law, As Such, The Same Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 2. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Quashed The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Particularly When, The Same Is Without Jurisdiction, As Such The Impugned Order Of Reassessment, Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law Is Liable To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 3. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Not Have Ignored The Explanation As Well As The Cash Flow Statement & Capital Account Furnished By The Appellant & Should Not Have Confirmed The Addition Made By The Learned A.O., Treating The Same As Undisclosed Investment.

Section 292BB of the Act is applicable to the present case in favour of the revenue. 8. So far as the contention of ld. AR based on the proposition rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (I) Ltd.(supra) is concerned, I find it appropriate to reproduce the reasons recorded

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT , NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains for the assessment year 2014-2015. It was only in respect of 1 lakh shares sold by the assessee in the assessment year 2013-2014 and 25000 shares sold for the assessment year 2014-2015 that the AO treated the transaction as bogus transaction. It was the submission that the shares of AAR Infrastructure was through first allotment

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains for the assessment year 2014-2015. It was only in respect of 1 lakh shares sold by the assessee in the assessment year 2013-2014 and 25000 shares sold for the assessment year 2014-2015 that the AO treated the transaction as bogus transaction. It was the submission that the shares of AAR Infrastructure was through first allotment

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

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

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

HI-TECH ESTATES & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

capital gains.". 43. From the perusal of above section it is crystal clear that before the insertion of this section there was no legal obligation on the part of the assessee to follow percentage completion method only. Before insertion of this section person engaged in construction and service contracts were free to follow either the project completion/ Completed project method

SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK,ROURKELA vs. ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

section 145 (3) and order of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd(supra), he cannot proceed further without rejecting Books of Account to make any addition to the profit derived, by taking a provisional costing figure, submitted by the appellant herself before the IBM. 20. We note that the assessee being raising the Iron Ore from

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, appeals of the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 C.O. No.01/Ctk/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) (Arising Out Of Ita No.373/Ctk/2018) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Indrani Indrani Patnaik, Patnaik, A/6, A/6, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commercial Commercial Estate, Estate, Civil Civil Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Township, Rourkela Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E Pan/Gir No.Accpp 6164 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Bhadra S.C. Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10 / 12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench The Cross The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee Assessee Are Directed Against The Or Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 Der Of The Cit(A), Sambalpur Dated 2.7.2018 For The P A G E 1 | 62

section 145 (3) and order of the Madras High Court in the case of Marg Ltd(supra), he cannot proceed further without rejecting Books of Account to make any addition to the profit derived, by taking a provisional costing figure, submitted by the appellant herself before the IBM. 20. We note that the assessee being raising the Iron Ore from

ACIT, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 32(1) and, therefore, there is no question of allowing depreciation on said rights. 46. We find that the assessee has raised these additional grounds as per the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in W.P (C) No.24 of 2013 and Misc. Case No.5716 of 2013 order dated 20.3.2013. In view of above, we admit these

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

M/S. ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

55,574/- and uphold the addition of Rs. 1,08,02,969/-, accordingly partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for both the assessment years. 8. Against the above order of CIT(A) for both the assessment years under consideration, the assessee is in appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 9. Ld. AR has reiterated the submissions made before

M/S. ANGUL SUKINDA RAILWAY LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.384&385/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.7622/4706, Press Chhaka Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751005 Pan No. : Aahca 6638 E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2019, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 Are As Under :- 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Is Illegal, Arbitrary Contrary To Evidence On Record & Without Application Of Mind & For That Matter The Said Order Is Liable To Be Quashed And/Or Annulled. 2. That On The Facts Of Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Treating Interest On Fdr & Flexi Deposit Amounting To Rs. 1,08,02,969/- As Revenue Receipt & Made Addition Although The Said Interest Is Inextricably Linked To The Project & Is Purely A Capital Receipt & Hence The Aforesaid Addition Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & Facts By Treating Capital Receipt As Revenue 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or To Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. For These & Among Other Grounds To Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, Adequate Relief As May Be Deemed Fit Be Granted In The Matter.

55,574/- and uphold the addition of Rs. 1,08,02,969/-, accordingly partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for both the assessment years. 8. Against the above order of CIT(A) for both the assessment years under consideration, the assessee is in appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 9. Ld. AR has reiterated the submissions made before