M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

gain or benefit of the persons specified in section 13(3) of the Act or for any other business enterprise or entity which comes within scope of this said provision. Ld. AR also drew our attention towards written submissions and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly observed that if the assessee is extending loan then Section

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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

c) Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 124(Guj) (d) Udit Kalra vs. ITO, Ward-SO(1) [ITA No.220/2019 of Delhi High Court, date of order - 08.03.2019] (e) Ratnakar M Pujari vs. ITO, Ward-2S(3)(3), Mumbai [ITA No.99S/MUM/2012 dt.09.0S.2016 (f) Pooja Ajmani vs ITO [ITA No.S714/De1/2018 dt.2S.04.2019] (g) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), Delhi

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) ..

Capital Gains of Rs. 1,89,869/-, as 'Business income' by the learned AO is unjustified, arbitrary, contrary to facts, erroneous and bad in law. 12. Levy of Interest o/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act - Rs. 1,53,56,380/-, Rs. 53,74,73,300, Rs. 4,09,11,235/- and Rs. 68,90,718/- respectively

ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. DCIT ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1)CUTTACK, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

C (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee by ओर : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue by ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख

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

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

C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the aforesaid Order is enclosed and marked as Annexure-1 for your kind reference. The Statutory Audit and the Tax Audit of the Company have been carried out by M/s. S.P. Batliboi & Associates, Kolkata and the Tax Audit report by our auditors clearly specifies that there is no addition required

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

1,00,000 shares to his wife Smt. Mridulla Gupta. The balance 7,67,500 shares were sold by the assessee on the floor of BSE through his broker Motilal Oswal Securities Limited for a consideration of Rs. 6,06,49,780/-. Backed by the substantial documentary evidence filed by the assessee which beyond doubt substantiates the genuineness

S.M.ENTERPRISERS,KEONJHAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

6 ITA Nos.199-202, 233&234/CTK/2020 3. It was further submitted that for the assessment years 2008-2009 & 2009-2010, being in respect of ITA Nos.233 & 234/CTK/2020, the penalties have been levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty in both the appeals were to be leviable u/s.271AAA of the Act. He drew our attention to the decision