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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

iii) Shri Anuj Agarwal, another broker had stated that the shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LD& DL) were rigged to generate bogus Long Term Cap~ Gains through accommodation entries. When those statements were confronted to the assessee, he had not been able to controvert the averments made therein, as mentioned in the assessment order. Ground

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

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

Capital Goods which is not routed through the Profit and Loss Account. (8) In regards to the applicability of the section 195 relating to import purchases and disallowances of the same in the pretext of non deduction of tax at source from, the remittances under Sec 40(a)(1), our submission is stated below alongwith relevant case laws

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

gain or for any other business or enterprise. In this aspect also, the assessee-trust is not eligible to get benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 15. Against the above observations of the AO, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) in the first appeal and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee affirming

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 for any other business or enterprise. In this aspect also, the assessee-trust is not eligible to get benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 15. Against the above observations of the AO, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) in the first appeal and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee affirming

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

6 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 D. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1. The Lid. CIT (Appeals) considered the Sale of Immovable Property as Income from Capital Gain which is without any basis and devoid of any merits. The taxation of Capital Gain under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is governed by the provisions of section 45 (charging section) and Section

M/S. BALASORE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,BALASORE vs. ACIT, BALASORE CIRCLE, BALASORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.467/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Balasore Cooperative Bank Vs. Acit, Balasore Circle, Limited, Balasore Bibekananda Marg, Balasore-756001 Pan No. : Aaccb 7823 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo,Advs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 04.08.2017, For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1) That The Order Of The Id. Cit(Appeals) Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By The A.O. Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjustified & Not In Accordance With Law. 2) That The Addition Of Rs. 36,79,148/- U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Confirmed By Cit(Appeals) To The Extent Of Rs. 36,30,998/- Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Uncalled For & Not In Accordance With Law & The Same Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(Appeals). 3) That The Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of Rs. 36,79,148/- As Detailed Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Unjustified & Hence Should Have Been Deleted By The Learned Cit(A) As The Genuineness Is Not In Doubt. Non-Deduction Of Tds Is A Separate Issue. A) Commission Payment To Dlds Collection Agents Rs. 33,45,248/- B) Legal Expenses Rs. 2,52,000/- C) Audit Fees Rs. 81,900/-

capital funds for improvement of the financial strength of Bank, "Dhan Laxmi Deposit Scheme" was started. The persons engaged for collection under the said DLDS Scheme are no other than the members, of the co-operative society only and not outsiders. Hence payment of remuneration to the collecting persons called as collection agents will not attract the provision of Section

KANAK BHANJ DEO,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.21/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Kanak Bhanj Deo, Vs Ito, Ward-5(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.2093/3341, Lane-5, Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751013 Pan No. :Angpb 4721 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Biswal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.11.2023, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058002817(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Entered Into Joint Development Agreement (Jda) With The Builder On 13.01.2012 & Further Executed A Distribution Agreement On 05.11.2014 According To Which The Land Of The Assessee Was Given To The Developer For Construction Of Multistoried Building & As Per Distribution Agreement, In Consideration The Assessee Is Entitled For 26% Area In The Constructed Building. During The Impugned Year The Assessee Has Got Four Flats Having Total Area Of 4220.23 Sq.Ft. (Including 92.85 Sq.Ft. Additional Area) As The Sale Consideration Being 26% Of The Newly Constructed Building. Out Of The Said

gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a)the assessee,- (i)owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset