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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

38) in respect of its dividend income and long term capital gains on sale of shares respectively in its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. In fact, in the return of income, the Assessee had admittedly sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains from sale of shares under section 10 as is evident from

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the I.T. Act. The CIT(A) during the course of hearing deleted the amount of Rs.3,83,541/- arising as long term capital gains on account of sales of other shares and stated eligible for exemption u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and sustained the addition of Rs.65,55,972/- (i.e Rs.69,39,513 Rs.3

TRIJAL ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 68 of the Act. Grounds No. 1 to 3 of the assessee's appeal are accordingly dismissed". b) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. (50 taxmann.com 110) wherein it was held that Certificate of incorporation, PANs etc. are not sufficient for the purpose of identification of shareholders when there

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

10(38) of the Act is arbitrary and addition of sale proceeds of shares of PAL u/s 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

RIDHI BAGARIA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

10(38) of the Act is arbitrary and addition of sale proceeds of shares of PAL u/s 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

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

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 the Ld. CIT(A). It is settled principle

SRI SUKHAMAYA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2013-14 Sri Sukhmaya Das, Sri Sukhmaya Das, At-N/3/69, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), 3(1), Irc Irc Village, Village, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aeppd 2993 A Aeppd 2993 A (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /06/20 /2021 O R D E R

10. Ld DR submitted that the assessee has failed miserably to furnish necessary documents either before the AO or before the ld CIT(A), therefore, the addition is justified and do not call for any interference. Ld D.R. submitted that invoking of section 68 as alleged by ld A.R. is not a basis to intervene the order

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

38,22,927/- 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

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

68 ITR 457 (Bom.) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident is an amount which is not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee may not have made an application under section 18(3B) [now section 195(2)]. The application