STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ODISHA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARAD 5(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

22,03,68,314/- only and not Rs. 53,48,75,077/- or Rs. 49,76,91,623/-. 3.5 In view of the above facts it is prayed before the Hon’ble Bench that there have been inconsistencies in the submissions made by the appellant before this Hon’ble Bench and those made before

OMM SHREE REALCON PVT. LTD,BHUBANESWAR vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

22 | 31 Assessment Year : 2018-19 section 68 in respect of said loan was justified. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in paras-18 & 19 as under: "18. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant has raised any substantial question of law. The transaction is sought to be proved by producing the bank statement

PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL,JAJPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.200/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Sri Purna Chandra Biswal, Vs. Principal Cit, Cuttack Jakhapura, Jajpur-755019 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aclpb 1493 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

22,927/- Profit before depreciation estimated @ 25% Of gross receipts Rs. 9,55,732/-(B) C, Profit before depreciation (A+-B) Rs. 55.82,712/- Less; Depreciation allowable Rs. 34,35,249/- D. Income from business Rs. 21,47,463/- E. Income from house property Rs. 87,115/- F. Income from other sources Rs. 7,63,190/- Gross total income Rs.29

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

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

22,41,000 15.000 37.25.000 After deducting the proportionate cost price of Rs.30,000/- and other expenses including STT the Net Long Term Capital Gains was computed at Rs.36,76,819/- and the same was claimed an exempt u/s. 10(38). The order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in the cases of Shri Manish

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

68 is against the provisions of Act. In the case in hand, the Id. AO has referred to SEBI enquiry against M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. However, we note that the said enquiry was regarding failure to comply with certain disclosure requirements and therefore, the subject matter of the enquiry has no connection with the transaction of bogus long term capital

SATYA NARAYAN PRADHAN,ANGUL vs. ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

10,000/- on 8.6.2012. Considering all these aspects, the Assessing Officer concluded that the source of cash deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- is unexplained and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee repeated the submission made before the Assessing officer. 5. The CIT(A) confirmed the action

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

68 of the Act without appreciating the nature of the deposits. He further submitted that the assessee bank was not authorized to allow the exchange facility against the specified bank notes during the period from 15.11.2016 to 29.11.2016 and, therefore, the entire deposits received during this period in demonetized currency is unexplained money and deserves to be added u/s.69A

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BARIPADA, BARIPADA vs. MAYURBHANJ CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BARIPADA

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwal

68 of the Act without appreciating the nature of the deposits. He further submitted that the assessee bank was not authorized to allow the exchange facility against the specified bank notes during the period from 15.11.2016 to 29.11.2016 and, therefore, the entire deposits received during this period in demonetized currency is unexplained money and deserves to be added u/s.69A