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

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

exemption available to it. Ld. AR further submitted that in the order, the ld. Pr.CIT himself has admitted that the assessment order is though could be held as erroneous but since the assessee is not liable to tax as it has made the necessary application of fund in accordance with 21 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 the provisions of the Act, therefore, there

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

transfer the entire sale proceeds to AE to ensure lowest sale price to MC. The assessee failed to justify the rationality of the approach since, the ultimate sale price to MCL is not linked with the cost of either assessee or AE in the entire scheme of arrangement. Further, the assessee's contention that the income of the assessee

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

transfer the entire sale proceeds to AE to ensure lowest sale price to MC. The assessee failed to justify the rationality of the approach since, the ultimate sale price to MCL is not linked with the cost of either assessee or AE in the entire scheme of arrangement. Further, the assessee's contention that the income of the assessee

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

price and mode of receipt etc. along with agricultural expenses such as purchase of seeds, fertilizers, labour charges etc. Please see that in the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 (page-1 of the paper book filed by the appellant), as per column-10 (exempt income), the appellant had herself declared nil agricultural income

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‟s Demat account where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one year the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the Kolkatta Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through an unregistered gift deed. The balance 7,67,500 shares were sold by the assessee during the year under consideration i.e over the period June, 2010 to October, 2010 and the LTCG of Rs. 5,93,15,038/- arising therefrom was claimed by him as exempt

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

transferred 1,00,000 shares to his wife Mrs. Mridulla Gupta through an unregistered gift deed. The balance 7,67,500 shares were sold by the assessee during the year under consideration i.e over the period June, 2010 to October, 2010 and the LTCG of Rs. 5,93,15,038/- arising therefrom was claimed by him as exempt

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

SATISH KUMAR GARG,ROURKELA vs. ITO WARD-5, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2014-15 Satish Satish Kumar Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Income Tax Officer, Ward Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Gurudwara, Rourkela Gurudwara, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No. . (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2 2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 26.12.2022 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Sambalpur/10380/2016 Sambalpur/10380/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

price of shares. The SEBI has investigated many companies and has drawn their conclusions but there is no adverse inference drawn against CCL International Ltd. The assessee has purchased shares as early as in 2011. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has permitted merger of the shares of AAR Infrastructure Ltd with that of CCL International Ltd. The assessee

PRAKASH AGARWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember Assessment Year : 2014-15 Satish Satish Kumar Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Income Tax Officer, Ward Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Garg,Gurudwara Road, Near Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Uditnagar, Gurudwara, Rourkela Gurudwara, Rourkela Rourkela Pan/Gir No. . (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr , Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/09/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2 2024 O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Inst The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated 26.12.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Sambalpur/10380/2016 Sambalpur/10380/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

price of shares. The SEBI has investigated many companies and has drawn their conclusions but there is no adverse inference drawn against CCL International Ltd. The assessee has purchased shares as early as in 2011. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has permitted merger of the shares of AAR Infrastructure Ltd with that of CCL International Ltd. The assessee

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

exempt any payment made to the legal heirs of the deceased employee to support them in hardship and ensure livelihood and accordingly, such receipt is not chargeable to tax. It may be noted that the facts of the case relate to the financial year after the insertion of section 56(2) (v) (introduced by Finance Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.09.2004) meant

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

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 "It is for the assessee

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

exemption u/s 80IA[4] 11. Turning to the facts of the case, we find that joint venture and the consortium was formed only to obtain the contract from the Government body and they in fact did not execute the work awarded to it. In a joint venture agreement or a consortium agreement, it was agreed that the awarded work

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

exemption u/s 80IA[4] 11. Turning to the facts of the case, we find that joint venture and the consortium was formed only to obtain the contract from the Government body and they in fact did not execute the work awarded to it. In a joint venture agreement or a consortium agreement, it was agreed that the awarded work