ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPAMY LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं/Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.110/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. National Aluminium Company 1(2), Bhubaneswar Limited, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.30/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.110/Ctk/2018) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 21.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Co No.30/Ctk/2018

90,268/- and the treatment of the aforesaid Gains including Short term Capital Gains of Rs.67,67,666/-, as 'Business income' by the lower authorities is unjustified, arbitrary, contrary to facts, erroneous and bad in law. f. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals) ought not have confirmed the action of the learned

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPAMY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं/Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.110/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. National Aluminium Company 1(2), Bhubaneswar Limited, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.30/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.110/Ctk/2018) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) National Aluminium Company Vs. Asst.Cit, Corporate Circle- Limited, 1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee, Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 21.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Co No.30/Ctk/2018

90,268/- and the treatment of the aforesaid Gains including Short term Capital Gains of Rs.67,67,666/-, as 'Business income' by the lower authorities is unjustified, arbitrary, contrary to facts, erroneous and bad in law. f. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals) ought not have confirmed the action of the learned

KAMAL KUMAR AGARWALLA,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.58/Ctk/2021 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar Kamal Kumar Agarwalla, 87, Kharavela Nagar, Unit-Iii, Bhubaneswar-751001 Pan No. : Aaopa 1367 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla/B.L.Agarwal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Made Against The Order Dated 20.03.2021, Passed By The Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar For Doing Of De Novo Assessment Is Not Sustainable In View Of The Fact That, The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. That, Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Wrong In Directing The Ld. Assessing Officer To Make The De Novo Assessment In View Of The Fact That The Issued With Regard To The Capital Gain Was Examined By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings By Issuing Of Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 15.12.2018 & Therefore The Revisional Order Passed U/S 263 Is Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That, The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar Is Not Justified In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) For The Purpose Of Verification Of Introduction Of Capital Which Had Been Verified By The Ld. Assessing Officer By Issuing

90,995/- as against the following claim & your reply dt.20.12.2011. For A.Y. 2004-05 Improvement Upto 31.10.2003 Rs.8,84,000 Indexed Rs.20,63,940/- For A.Y.2012-13 Upto 18.09.2011 Rs.3,03,334/- Indexed Rs.4,17,712/- No bills/vouchers claimed to be attached are on record and it appeared there was none. (b) It was also not examined as to how such

M/S. NIYATI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-2007

gain is only through manipulation. 4.9 Regarding the 4 alleged company share holders, it seen from their returns of income that M/s. Vindya Agencies (P) Ltd. has declared a loss of Rs. 1,03,190/-, Sunrays Agencies Pvt. Ltd has declared a loss of Rs. 1,53,220/-, Saffire Exports and Agency Pvt. Ltd. has declared a profit

ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

section 2(47)(v). Hence, long term capital gain has arisen during the FY 2006-07. 5. The super built up area of 3 dwelling units given to the assessee by the builder is 5157 sqft. Taking into account the market price of remaining 6 flats sold to the customers, the average market price realized by the builder comes

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA, BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

section 2(47)(v). Hence, long term capital gain has arisen during the FY 2006-07. 5. The super built up area of 3 dwelling units given to the assessee by the builder is 5157 sqft. Taking into account the market price of remaining 6 flats sold to the customers, the average market price realized by the builder comes

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

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

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

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2016-17 National National Aluminium Aluminium Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(2), Company Limited., Nalco Company Limited., Nalco Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Bhawan, Bhawan, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaacn 7449 M (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca & Shri P. Venugopal Rao, Ca Venugopal Rao, Ca Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

90,606/-, Please explain how the same is admissible u/s 37 of the Act.” He further drew our attention to pages 224 & 225, which were details of the amount of Rs.123.13 crores towards tax duty and cess which reads as follows: “Before the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(2),Bhubaneswar. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED –Asst.Year

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

90 and 91 as well as the provisions of the DTAA are also relevant, while applying tax deduction at source provisions. Reference to the ITO (TDS) under section 195(2) or 195(3) either by the non-resident or by the resident payer is to avoid any future hassles for both resident as well as non- resident. Section

JAY KISHORE CHOUBEY,RAIRANGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

capital gains computed by the assessee was recalculated in the assessment order without issuing a fresh notice under section 148 of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following observations of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways India Ltd [2011] 321 ITR 236 (Bom.): "16 Section 147 has this effect that

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

KANAKALATA MALLICK,B-FIFTY FIVE,SECTOR-EIGHT vs. JCIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.363/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Kanaklata Mallick, Vs Jcit, Cuttack B-Fifty Five, Sector-Eight, Cda, Odisha-753014 Pan No. :Acspm 3665 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate 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 20.09.2023, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056301242(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is In Regard To The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271Da Of The Act For Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 269St Of The Act. Ld. Jcit Has Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S.271Da Of The Act By Issuing A Show Cause Notice Dated 01.10.2021 & Thereafter Levied The Penalty Of Rs.5,00,000/- Vide Impugned Order Dated 27.04.2022. In First Appeal, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Said Penalty, Therefore, The Assessee Is Before Us In The Present Appeal. 3. During The Course Of Arguments, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Had Received More Than 90% Of The Consideration

90% of the consideration 2 through banking channel and only one occasion i.e. on 10.07.2017 the buyer approached the assessee with a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and it was stated by them that since they were coming from outstation and do not have the cheque book, therefore, they insisted for the part payment of Rs.5 lakhs in cash. Despite

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

capital gains and income from other sources. In the case of H.G Kothari v. CIT (1951)20 ITR 579 (Mad). It was held that Income which is specifically made chargeable under a distinct head cannot be brought to charge under a different head in lieu of or in addition to being charged under its specific head. Clause

ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HANDICRAFTS CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

capital gains and income from other sources. In the case of H.G Kothari v. CIT (1951)20 ITR 579 (Mad). It was held that Income which is specifically made chargeable under a distinct head cannot be brought to charge under a different head in lieu of or in addition to being charged under its specific head. Clause