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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

long term capital gains had been established beyond doubt and, consequently, proceeded to make the disallowance. Now, unlike section 132(4) which

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

disallowed and added back to the total income' In response to this' the Assesseerespectfullysubmitsthat,aftercalculationofcostinflationindex' the cost of property came to Rs.50,93,427.00 whereas the sale consideration was of Rs.43,98,880.00, therefore there was a long term capital loss of Rs.(-)6,9 4,627.00. The Assessee wants to draw your kind attention to the computation of income

HANUMAN KHEDARIA HUF,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD 2, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela. C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Market, Market, Kachery Road, Rourkela. Kachery Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca .R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/12 12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

disallowed the assessee’s claim of the loss on account of long term capital loss in respect of the scrips of Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd. It was the submission that the profit generated in respect of the long term capital gain

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

disallowed the entire sale consideration to make the addition of Rs.81,41,052/-. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had further made an addition of commission alleged to have been paid to intermediaries to an extent of Rs.4,07,053/- though no evidence of such expenditure was found nor it was claimed by the assessee

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

long term capital gain declared by the assessee by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act, therefore, the said

RAJAT KUMAR BALIARSINHA,CUTTACK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Rajat Rajat Kumar Kumar Baliarsinha, Baliarsinha, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Nh-5, Manguli, Chowdwar, 5, Manguli, Chowdwar, Cuttack Cuttack-754024 754024 Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Acgpb 0384 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Th This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Th This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 29.2.2024 In Appeal No. In Appeal No. Nfac/2019- 20/10195776 For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. Shri S.K.Sarangi S.K.Sarangi, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

Long term capital gains”. P a g e 5 | 6 Assessment Year : 2020-2021 7. It is also recognized that the Assessing Officer has accepted that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.28,00,000/- towards development of the said land but has denied the expenditure stating the reasons given in para 10 of his order, the disallowance

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

long time. In P a g e 8 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) it was held that tax is exigible only on income earned in reality. Even if entries are made in the books of account, what is relevant is the entries that are made on accrual basis

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), CUTTACK vs. SHRI ASHWIN KUMAR AGARWAL, CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowance of claim of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain on the purchase