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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

section 10 as is evident from the return of income. However, in the return of income as filed originally for A.Y. 2015-16 the Assessee by mistake, omitted to exclude the dividend income and income from long term capital gains from the total income being declared by it. 18.9. We further notice that Hon‟ble Supreme court of India

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

LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the directions

capital gain. The AO by observing that the stamp value authority has valued the said property at Rs.1,15,51,737/- and, thus, show caused as to why the sale consideration should not be substituted to Rs.1,15,51,737/- as against Rs.17,64,150/- declared by the 3 assessee in terms of Section

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

capital gain, no such income was disclosed by the assessee in the return of income. Hence, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 on 17.7.2009, in response to which the assessee by letter dt.3.8.2009 submitted before the Assessing Officer that the return filed by him earlier, the photocopy of which is enclosed to the reply, be treated

SATYARANJAN CHAND,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Satyaranjan Satyaranjan Chand, Chand, Plot Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of 3Rd No.Ga-722, 722, 3 Floor, Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Kalinga Nagar, K Kalinga Nagar, K-3-B, Po: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aajpc 7891 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawal Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 /11/2023 O R D E R

capital gains tax. The sale had been done on 27.12.2014. The sub-plot No.36B which consisted of a house property was on rent to the assessee’s sister namely, Stm. Amitarani Giri. She had been staying on the said house from April, 2014 and this has also been recognized by the Pr. CIT in his order passed u/s.263

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/SD. SRB CONSULTANCY (P) LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

capital gain on sale of assets of Rs.1,53,02,230/-.” 4. In Cross objection, the assessee has filed a consolidated grounds consisting of 10 grounds, as follows: “1. For that the order of the CIT (A), in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,52,32,767/-against the disallowance of deduction claimed U/s. 80IA, being just & proper, be upheld

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,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