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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69,000/- was made on account of capital introduction by the assessee as unexplained credit in the hands of the firm which therefore, established that the assessee has not been able to prove the genuineness of the source of the capital introduced in the partnership firm. The Id Sr. DR further submitted that the Id CIT(A) while confirming

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

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

gain, your Assessee has declared it in the return of income as exempted income, for which she is lawfully entitled to. your Assessee submits herewith copies of purchase Deed and sale Deed and copy of Khatiyan for your reference and record On perusal of Deeds, it will be clear that the lands sold are purely agricultural land and are situated

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

69 of the order that the legal principle which can be culled out from the above decision is that to prove the allegations, against the assessee, can be inferred by a logical process of reasoning from the totality of the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations/charges made and levelled and when direct evidence is not available

SMT. SANJUKTA PRUSTY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gain after taking exemption U/s.54F of the I.T.Act 1961. The copy of the acknowledgement along with the hard copy of the return are enclosed in the paper book-1 submitted on 08.01.2018 and marked as Annexure-C (page-31 to 40) for you honour's kind perusal. 5.8 That under the above said facts and circumstances of the case

LAXMINARAYAN DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita No.521 /Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Laxminarayan Das Laxminarayan Das Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Income Tax Officer, Ward Plot No.575-C, C, 3(3), Bhubaneswar Hubaneswar Behera Sahi Nayapali Bhubaneswar, 751012 , 751012 Pan/Gir No. No.Accpd 0726 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri P.K.Misahra & B.N.Behera B.N.Behera, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 22/03/2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Bhuban Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10236/2018-19 19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri B.N.Behera B.N.Behera & P.K.Mishra, Ld Ars Appeared For Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

capital gain earned by the assessee for this year. It was his request that the matter may be restored back to his file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits with the direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 6. In reply, ld Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld AO and CIT(A). 7. We have

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 10(38) of the Act, the requirement was only 12 months. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the ld. AO without considering the submissions of the assessee. It was the prayer that the assessee may be held to be eligible for the exemption u/s.10