PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests

ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

price, which is determined appropriately. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the above addition holding that the entire sale proceeds has been transferred

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

price, which is determined appropriately. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the above addition holding that the entire sale proceeds has been transferred

ABANI PATTANAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BHUBANESWAR

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

Transfer Pricing Act, as part performance as required from the side of the assessee, has fully been complied with being

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

price was paid by cheque and respondent’s bank account has been debited. The shares were also transferred into respondent

LALIT KUMAR JALAN,JALAN PHARMACEUTICALS vs. ITO WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the directions

price after considering the above negative factors attached to the land. However, the stamp authorities had ignored all these factors and valued the property solely based on the circle rate and no concession was given towards these negative factors. The AO after receiving the objections from the assessee towards the value adopted by stamp duty authorities, in terms

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

transfer accrued to the assessee, there was diversion of the entire consideration at source before it became income in the hands of the assessee. Further, reliance is placed on the judgements of ACIT Vs Emaar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) ITA No. 928/Del/2016 and Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi). For the sake of brevity, the relevant portions

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

price and credited to the said fund were first liable to be used in adjusting the losses of the respondent society in the working year; thereafter in the repayment of initial loan from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India and then for redeeming the Government share and only in the event of any balance being left, it was liable

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

price and credited to the said fund were first liable to be used in adjusting the losses of the respondent society in the working year; thereafter in the repayment of initial loan from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India and then for redeeming the Government share and only in the event of any balance being left, it was liable

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

price appearing on the exchange portal and at the point of time of sale of equity shares, companies were not marked as shell companies by SEBI and nor the trading of these scrips were suspended. The assessee also deserves to succeed on the legal ground as no opportunity was awarded to cross examination the third person which were allegedly found

MR. BICHITRANANDA ROUT,SHANKARPUR, CUTTACK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

transferring or receiving SBNs is only after the ‘appointed day’ which is 31.12.2016. In view of the above, there is no violation by the assessee of any law in accepting SBNs for the purpose of cash sales and considering it to be a due discharge of debt. Furthermore, even the CBDT had issued various Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) instructing

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

transferred to their constituents. Therefore, the joint venture or the consortium was only a paper entity and has not executed in contract itself. They have also not offered any income out of the work 16 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 executed by its constituents, nor did they claim any deductions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

transferred to their constituents. Therefore, the joint venture or the consortium was only a paper entity and has not executed in contract itself. They have also not offered any income out of the work 16 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 executed by its constituents, nor did they claim any deductions

M/S. SHREE BAALAJI ENGICONS LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

transferred to their constituents. Therefore, the joint venture or the consortium was only a paper entity and has not executed in contract itself. They have also not offered any income out of the work 16 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 executed by its constituents, nor did they claim any deductions

M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD.,BELPAHAR, JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

transferred to their constituents. Therefore, the joint venture or the consortium was only a paper entity and has not executed in contract itself. They have also not offered any income out of the work 16 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 executed by its constituents, nor did they claim any deductions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. SHREE BALAJI ENGICONS PVT. LTD., JHARSUGUDA

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

transferred to their constituents. Therefore, the joint venture or the consortium was only a paper entity and has not executed in contract itself. They have also not offered any income out of the work 16 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 executed by its constituents, nor did they claim any deductions