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

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

deduction could not be allowed. 4. We are unable to accept the submission. The Tribunal has considered this issue and found that as per Form 10CCB filed 15 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 during assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee was admissible. Finding of the Tribunal is an under "19. la view of the above, we find no error in the order

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

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

deduction could not be allowed. 4. We are unable to accept the submission. The Tribunal has considered this issue and found that as per Form 10CCB filed 15 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 during assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee was admissible. Finding of the Tribunal is an under "19. la view of the above, we find no error in the order

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

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

deduction could not be allowed. 4. We are unable to accept the submission. The Tribunal has considered this issue and found that as per Form 10CCB filed 15 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 during assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee was admissible. Finding of the Tribunal is an under "19. la view of the above, we find no error in the order

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

price realised (less admitted deductions) that the capital gain and the tax thereon has to be computed. 9. In these premises, the first question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue The other questions do not arise for consideration. B. Similarly, in the case of T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai). the operative part

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

deducting gross profit from same price ultimately credited to profit 8: loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s 68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) that

ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SAMBALPUR vs. SHREE BALAJI ENGICON LIMITED, BELPAHAR RS

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

deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner

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

deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner

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

deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner

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

deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner

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

deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner

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

deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner

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

deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint venture as the principal awardee and developer of the infrastructure facility and later by one of its constituent claiming to be the lead partner

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer of a long term capital asset, being an equity share in a company, if the transaction of acquisition, other than the acquisition notified by the Central Government in this behalf, of such equity share is entered into on or after the 1st day of October, 2004 and such transaction is not chargeable to securities transaction tax under Chapter

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

deduction u/s 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

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

pricing of each of the shares varies between 10 and 690. The dealt with by the assessee which are above the value of 100 are about 9 out of 55 different shares. Thus, the assessee is substantially into dealing in midcap and small cap shares. The shares of AAR Infrastructure which has been applied for and has been allotted

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

pricing of each of the shares varies between 10 and 690. The shares out of 55 different shares. Thus, the assessee is substantially into dealing in midcap and small cap shares. The shares of AAR Infrastructure which has been applied for and has been allotted on account of merger with CCL International increased in number but reduced in value. Admittedly

HEMANT KUMAR AGARWAL,CUTTACK vs. ADDL.CIT , NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

pricing of each of the shares varies between 10 and 690. The shares out of 55 different shares. Thus, the assessee is substantially into dealing in midcap and small cap shares. The shares of AAR Infrastructure which has been applied for and has been allotted on account of merger with CCL International increased in number but reduced in value. Admittedly